Facts: The respondent no.3 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a school run by the petitioner-Management. Following a dispute regarding his cessation of service, which the Management claimed was based on a resignation notice dated 11.07.2019 and a subsequent resignation dated 28.08.2019, the respondent filed an appeal before the School Tribunal seeking reinstatement. At the stage of final arguments, the respondent moved an application to amend his memorandum of appeal. The proposed amendment sought to clarify that the document dated 11.07.2019 was a "notice of resignation" rather than a "resignation letter", and to include specific details of the subsequent resignation dated 28.08.2019, to bring the pleadings in line with the documents already on record. The School Tribunal allowed this amendment.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner-Management filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the School Tribunal's order dated 02.09.2025 that allowed the amendment of the memorandum of appeal at the stage of final arguments.
Issue: Whether the School Tribunal has the jurisdiction to allow an amendment to the pleadings at the stage of final arguments or judgment when the applicant has failed to specifically demonstrate "due diligence" as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Holding: Yes, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's order. It held that while "due diligence" is a vital jurisdictional factor, the "real controversy test" and the necessity of the amendment for a complete adjudication of the dispute can outweigh the requirement of proving due diligence, especially when the amendment is purely clarificatory and causes no prejudice to the opposing party.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the primary object of Order VI Rule 17 is to enable the determination of the real question in controversy. Although the proviso restricts amendments after the commencement of trial unless due diligence is shown, the Court must adopt a liberal approach rather than a hyper-technical one. In this case, the documents referenced in the amendment were already part of the record and known to both parties; therefore, no new case or "new story" was introduced. The Court emphasized that "at any stage of the proceedings" includes the period until the judgment is pronounced, as the Judge remains in seisin of the case. Since the amendment was essential for a final and complete adjudication and did not cause injustice to the petitioners, the Tribunal's exercise of discretion was not perverse or palpably wrong.