STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                        [2011] 12 S.C.R. 140


A                 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                v.
                     UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
                       I.A. NO. 4 OF 2009
                                   in
B                    Original Suit No. 6 of 2004

                          AUGUST 17, 2011
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

C       Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Order XXVI, Rule 8 -
   Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI, Rule 17 -
   Amendment of pleadings - Central Government issued
   Notifications/Orders u/ss.58(3) & 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh
   Re-organisation Act (MPR Act), notifying the date of
D dissolution of the M.P. Electricity Board (MPEB) and
   apportioning its assets, rights c..nd liabilities between
   successor Electricity Boards for the reorganized States of
   Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh '."'" The State of Madhya
   Pradesh approached Supreme Court invoking original
E jurisdiction u!Article 131 of the Constitution and praying that
   the said Notifications/Orders be declared null and void for
   being arbitrary, unjust and unfair - 5 years later, the plaintiff-
   State filed amendment application, praying for incorporation
   of additional relief in the plaint viz. to declare ss.58(3) & 58(4)
F of the MPR Act as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution -
   Held: Inasmuch as the plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh
   approached Supreme Court invoking original jurisdiction u/
   Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court Rules have
   to be applied to the case in hand - Order XXVI, Rule 8 of the
G Rules (which is similar to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC) prescribes
   that at any stage of the proceedings, the Court may allow
   either party to amend his pleadings - However, it must be
   established that the proposed amendment is necessary for
   the purpose of determining the real question in controversy

H                                 140
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA & 141
                  ANR.
between the parties - The original plaint proceeds on the             A
basis that exercise of power by the Central Government by
passing the impugned Notifications ulss.58(3) and 58(4) of
the MPR Act was arbitrary, unjust and unfair and had resulted
in serious anomalies in the apportionment of assets and
liabilities - After praying for such relief, if the amendment as      B
sought for by the plaintiff is allowed and the plaintiff is
permitted to challenge the vires of the said provisions, then
the very basis on which the plaintiff is claiming its right to
apportionment of assets, rights and liabilities of the undivided
Board will cease to be in existence and the entire suit of the        c
plaintiff will be rendered infructuous - Leave to amend ought
to be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and
inconsistent case or challenges the fundamental character of
the suit - Also, the amendment application was filed at a
belated stage - The plaintiff-State did not assign any reason         0
for not taking steps and for waiting for five years - However,
plaintiff given opportunity to put forth its-stand that the Central
Government issued impugned Notifications/Orders without
proper guidelines and affording opportunity to the parties
concerned - In the interest of justice, plaintiff-State permitted     E
to raise such objections at the time of trial - Pleadings -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 131 - Madhya Pradesh
Re-organisation Act, 2000 - s.58(3) and s.58(4).

     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI, Rule 17 -
Purpose and object of - Held: The purpose and object of               F
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is to allow either party to alter or
amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as
may be just - Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of
right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while
deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical              G
approach - Liberal approach should. be the general rule
particularly, in cases where the other side can be
compensated with costs - Normally, amendments are allowed
in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations - Pleadings.
                                                                      H
     142      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.

I\        Jurisdiction - In regard to questions as to constitutionality
     of Central laws - Power of judicial review of the writ courts -
     On facts, plaintiff-State sought to challenge the validity of a
     Central law in a proceeding (suit) initiated under Article 131
     of the Constitution - Held: Normally, for questions relating to
s    validity of Central or other laws, the appropriate forum is
     extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the
     Constitution in a writ petition and not an original suit filed
     under Article 131 which vests exclusive jurisdiction of this
     Court as regHrds the dispute enumerated therein -
c    Constitution of India, 1950 ~Articles 32, 131and 226.

         In the year 2004, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed
    an Original Suit before this Court under Article 131 of the
    Constitution of India calling for the records relating to the
    impugned Notifications/Orders dated 02.11.2004 and
D 04.11.2004 issued by the 1st Defendant-Union of India
    under Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya Pradesh
    Re-organisation Act, 2000 (MPR Act), notifying the date
  · of dissolution of the M.P. Electricity Board (MPEB) and
    apportioning its assets, rights and liabilities between the
E successor Electricity Boards for the reorganized States
    of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and to declare
    them null and void as the same were unconstitutional and
    for certain other reliefs. In the year 2009, the plaintiff-State
    of Madhya Pradesh filed I.A. No.4 of 2009- application for
F amendment of the plaint, praying for incorporation of
    additional relief in the plaint viz. to declare Sections 58(3)
    and 58(4) of the MPR Act as violative of Article 14 of the
    Constitution.

G     1st Defendant-Union of India, apart from disputing its
  maintainability on delay and laches also contested on
  merits. 2nd Defendant-State of Chhattisgarh objected to
  the amendment on the ground that the same was totally
  misconceived and untenable in law and that no recourse
H whatsoever could be permitted to challenge the validity
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA & 143
                  ANR.
of a Central law under the exclusive jurisdiction of this · A
Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. The State of
Chhattisgarh further contended that since the plaintiff.
State of M;P., on one hand was seeking a prayer that 1st
defendant must perform its duty in accordance with the
Statute and, on the other hand, was challenging the B
validity of the very same Statute and, therefore, it was
liable to be dismissed.

    Disposing of I.A. No. 4 of 2009, the Court

     HELD:1.1. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil C
Procedure, 1908 enables the parties to make amendment
of the plaint. The provision deals with amendment of
pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision
was deleted. It was again been restored by Amendment
Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to· prevent D
application for amendment being allowed after the trial
has commenced, unless the Court comes to the
conclusion that inspite of du~ diligence, the party could
not have raised the matter before the commencement of
trial. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute E
discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if
application is filed after commencement of trial, it must
be shown that inspite of due diligence, such amendment
could not have been sought earlier. The purpose and
object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either F
party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and
on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances,
but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not
adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach G
should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the
other side can be compensated with costs. Normally,
amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid
multiplicity of litigations. [Para 8) [149-G; 150-C-F]
    1.2. However, inasmuch as the plaintiff-State of       H
    144      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A Madhya Pradesh approached this Court invoking the
  original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution,
  the Rules framed by this Court, i.e., The Supreme Court
  Rules, 1966 have to be applied to the case on hand.
  Order XXVI of the Rules speaks about "Pleadings
B Generally" and Rule 8 thereof, which is similar to Order
  VI Rule 17 of the Code, prescribes that at any stage of
  the proceedings, the Court may allow either party to
  amend his pleadings. However, it must be established
  that the proposed amendment is necessary for the
c purpose of determining the real question in controversy
  between the parties. [Para 9] [150-G-H; 151-A-B]

      Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh (2009) 10
  SCC 626; North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur
  v. Bhagwan Das (dead) by LRS (2008) 8 SCC 511: 2008 (6)
D SCR 416; Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd and. Others (2008) 3
  SCC 717: 2008 (1) SCR 795 (iv)Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and
  Others v. K.K. Modi and Others (2006) 4 SCC 385: 2006 (3)
  SCR 175; Revajeetu Builders and Developers v.
  Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others (2009) 10 SCC 84:
E 2009 (15) SCR 103 - referred to.
       2.1. The plaintiff-State filed the application for
  amendment of plaint at a belated stage. It is true that
  there is no embargo in Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and in
F Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules which
  alone govern the procedural aspects. However, the fact
  remains that the plaintiff has not assigned any reason for
  not taking steps when the State had approached this
  Court under Article 131 by way of a suit even in the year
G 2004 and waited till 2009. Throughout the pendency of the
  suit since 01.12.2004, no issue whatsoever was ever
  raised by the plaintiff as to the validity or constitutionality
  of the statutory provisions. [Paras 14, 15] [156-E-F; 157-
  A-C]

H         2.2. Further, MPEB being the successor Electricity
 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA 145
                  &ANR.
Board for the reorganized State of M.P., a necessary party      A
to the present /is, had filed a separate Writ Petition before
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution where
identical pleadings and prayers were made. Though the
MPEB approached this Court by way of a writ petition
under Article 32, admittedly, the vires of those sections       B
were never challenged. In the said writ petition, the
present plaintiff was also a party, even then the plea of
constitutionality was not raised. Subsequently, the said
writ petition along with three other writ petitions were
disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated                   c
13.09.2006. This Court did not find any infirmity
whatsoever in the manner of exercise of power by the
Central Government under Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the
MPR Act while upholding the notifications dated
02.11.2004 and 04.11.2004 as being· constitutional and not      0
suffering from any vice of arbitrariness as claimed by the
plaintiff-State of M.P. and MPEB. [Para 16] [157-D·H; 158-
A]
     3. By way of present amendment, the plaintiff-State
of M.P. is seeking to challenge the validity of the Central E
law in a proceeding (suit) initiated under Article 131 of the
Constitution. Normally, for questions relating to validity
of Central or other laws, the appropriate forum is the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction· under Articles 32 and 226
of the Constitution in a writ petition and not an original F
suit filed under Article 131 which vests exclusive
jurisdiction of this· Court as regards the dispute
enumerated therein. Article 131A of the Constitution
inserted by (42nd Amendment) Act 1976, provided for
exclu~ive jurisdiction to this Court in regard to questions G
as to constitutionality of Central laws. The said Article
131A viewed as substantially curtailing the power of
judicial review of the writ courts, that is, High Courts
under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 was
omitted vide Constitution (43rd Amendment) Act, 1977. It H
    146      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A follows that when the Central laws can be challenged in
  the State High Courts as well and also before this Court
  under Article 32, normally, no recourse can be permitted
  to challenge the validity of a Central law under the
  exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided
B under Article 131. [Para 7] [158-B-F]

        4. Further, the original plaint proceeds on the basis
  that the exercise of power by the Central Government by
  passing the impugned Notifications dated 02.11.2004 and
C 04.11.2004 under Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR Act
  was arbitrary, unjust and unfair and had resulted in
  serious anomalies in the apportionment of assets and
  liabilities. After praying for such relief, if the amendment
  as sought for by the plaintiff is allowed and the plaintiff
  is permitted to challenge the vires of the said provisions,
D then the very basis on which the plaintiff is claiming its
  right to apportionment of assets, rights and liabilities of
  the undivided Board will cease to be in existence and the
  entir_e suit of the plaintiff will be rendered infructuous.
  Moreover, it is settled principle of law that leave to amend
E will be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and
  inconsistent case or challenges the fundamental
  character of the suit. However, in spite of the above
  conclusion, it is felt that the plaintiff may be given an
  opportunity to put forth its stand that the Central
F Government issued impugned Notifications/Orders
  without proper guidelines and affording opportunity to
  the parties concerned. In the interest of justice, plaintiff-
  State of M.P. is permitted to raise such objections at the
  time of trial by placing acceptable materials. [Paras 19,
G 20] [159-B-F]
                        Case Law Reference:
          (2009) 1o sec 626     referred to          Para 9
          2008 (6) SCR 416      referred to          Para 9
H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA & 147
                  ANR.
     2008 (1) SCR 795           referred to           Para 9        A
     2006 (3) SCR 175           referred to           Para 9
     2009 (15) SCR 103          referred to           Para 9
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 4 of 2009.              B
                                    IN
     Original Suit No. 6 of 2004.

     H.P. Raval, ASG, C.S. Vaidaynathan, A, Mariarputham,
Ravi Shankar Prasad, G. Umapathy, Sudha Umapathy, Rakesh            c
K. Sharma, T.A. Khan, R.K. Tanwar, Yusuf Khan, V.K. Verma,
Suparna Srivastava, Rajesh Srivastava for the appearing
parties.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                    D
      P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. In the year 2004, the State of
Madhya Pradesh has filed Original Suit No. 6 of 2004 before
this Court under Article J31 of the Constitution of India calling
for the records relating to the impugned Notifications/Orders
dated 02.11.2004 and 04.11.2004 issued by the 1st Defendant-        E
Union of India under Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya
Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as
"MPR Act"), notifying the date of dissolution of the M.P.
Electricity Board (in short "the MPEB") for the undivided State
of Madhya Pradesh and apportioning its assets, rights and           F
liabilities between the successor Electricity Boards for the
reorganized States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and
to declare them null and void as the same are unconstitutional
and for certain other reliefs.

      2. In the said suit, the plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh G
filed an application for amendment of plaint being I.A. No.4 of
2009 seeking, inter a/ia, the amendment to the effect that
Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR Act are violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it enables the
                                                                 H
    148      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A Central Government to determine without any guidelines the
  manner of exercise of power while deciding the basis of
  apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the successor
  Boards.

        3. 1st Defendant-Union of India, apart from disputing its
8
    maintainability on delay and laches also contested on merits.

       4. 2nd Defendant-State of Chhattisgarh has objected to
  the amendment on the ground that the same is totally
  misconceived and untenable in law and that no recourse
C whatsoever can be permitted to challenge the validity of a
  Central law under the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court under
  Article 131 of the Constitution of India. The State of
  Chhattisgarh has also contended that the plaintiff-State of M.P.,
  on the one hand is seeking a prayer that 1st Defendant must
D perform its duty in accordance with the Statute and, on the other
  hand, is challenging the validity of the very same Statute and,
  therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

       5. Heard Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel
E for the applicant/plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. H.P.
  Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General for Respondent No.
  1/lst Defendant-Union of India and Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad,
  learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 2/2nd Defendant-
  State of Chhattisgarh.

F      6. In view of the fact that at present we are concerned with
  l.A.No.4 of 2009 - application for amendment of plaint, there
  is no need to traverse all the factual details as stated in the
  plaint and written statement. However, it is relevant to point out
  the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff in the main suit which are
G as under:
          "(a) Call for the records relating to the impugned
          Notifications/Orders dated 02.11.2004 and 04.11.2004
          and declare the same as null and void as the same is
          unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 of the
H
          Constitution;
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA & 149
           ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     (b) Direct 1st defendant to dissolve MPEB in consonance          A
     with other orders/directions dated 12.04.2001, 04.12.2001
     and 23.05.2003 passed by the 1st defendant under
     Section 58(4) of MPRA;

     (c) Direct the 1st Defendant by way of mandatory injunction      B
     to perform its constitutional and the statutory duty to lay
     down proper criteria for apportionment of assets, rights
     and 'liabilities in accordance with law and to ensure
     equitable, just, fair and reasonable apportionment of
     assets, rights and liabilities amongst the successor             C
     Boards on the basis of revenue potential so as to avoid
     undue hardship and disadvantage to any of the successor
     Boards; and .

     (d) Pass any other order and/or direction, as this Hon'ble
     Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and                   D
     circumstances of the case."

     7. In the present application, i.e., I.A. No.4 of 2009, the
applicant-State of M. P. has prayed for amendment of the plaint
by adding the following relief:                                       E

     "(b) to permit additional relief to be incorporated in the
     Plaint viz., declare Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the Madhya
     Pradesh State Re-organisation Act, 2000 is being
     unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
     Constitution"                                                    F

    8. In order to consider the claim of the plaintiff and the
opposition of the defendants, it is desirable to refer the relevant
provisions. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (in short 'the Code') enables the parties to make                G
amendment of the plaint which reads as under;

   · "17. Amendment of pleadings - The Court may at any
     stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or
     amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms
                                                                      H
    150       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 12 S.C.R.


A         as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made
          as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the
          real questions in controversy between the parties:

                Provided that no application for amendment shall be
          allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court
B
          comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the
          party could not have raised the matter before the
          commencement of trial."

    The above provision deals with amendment of pleadings. By
C   Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has
    again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with
    an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being
    allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes
    to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could
D   not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
    The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allcw
    amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after
    commencement of trial, it mu$t be shown that in spite of due
    diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier.
E   The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to
    allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such
    manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot
    be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances,
    but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a
F   hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the
    general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be
    compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed
    in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations.
        9. Inasmuch as the plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh has
G approached this Court invoking the original jurisdiction under
  Article 131 of the Constitution of India, the Rules framed by this
  Court, i.e., The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (in short 'the Rules)
  have to be applied to the case on hand. Order XXVI speaks
  about "Pleadings Generally". Among various rules, we are
H concerned about Rule 8 which reads as under:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA & 151
           ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    "The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow        A
    either party to amend his pleading in such manner and on
    such terms as may be just, but only such amendments shall
    be made as may be necessary for the purpose of
    determining the real question in controversy between the
    parties,"                                                     B

The above provision, which is similar to Order VI Rule 17 of
the Code prescribes that at any stage of the proceedings, the
Court may allow either party to amend his pleadings. However,
it must be established that the proposed amendment is
necessary for_ the purpose of determining the real question in C
controversy between the parties.

      10. This Court, while considering Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code, in several judgments has laid down the principles to be
applicable in the case of amendment of plaint which are as        D
follows:

     (i)   Surender Kumar.Sharma v. Makhan Singh, (2009)
           10 sec 626, at para 5:
    "5. As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was E
    refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the
    first ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for amendment
    was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was
    belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided
    is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real F
    controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well
    settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
    Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have
    been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the
    pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms G
    as it appears to the court just and proper. Even if, such ~n
    application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly,
    such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found
    that for deciding the real controversy between the parties,
    it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore, in our H
-       152            SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 12 S.C.R.


    A         view, mere delay and !aches in making the application for
              amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment."

               (ii)     Notth Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur
                        v. Bhagwan Das (dead) by LRS, (2008) 8 SCC
                        511, at para16:
    B
              "16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question
              of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule
              17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned,
              these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
    C         postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the
              proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Ka/gonda
              Shidgonda Patil which still holds the field, it was held that
              all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two
              conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side,
    D         and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining
              the real questions in controversy between the parties.
              Amendments should be refused only where the other party
              cannot be placed in the same position as if the plea.ding
              had been originally correct, but the amendment would
    E         cause him an injury which could not be compensated in
              costs."

               (iii)    Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd and Others, (2008)
                        3 sec 717, at para 13:

    F         "13. Mr Bharuka, on the other hand, invited our attention
              to another decision of this Court in Ba/dev Singh v.
              Manohar Singh. In para 17 of the decision, it was held and
              observed as follows: (SCC pp. 504-05)

    G      "17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that
      proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ·provides that amendment of
      pleadings shall not be allowed when the tria! of the suit has
      already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the
      records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced.
    H It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their
 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA & 153
            ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

  documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also           A
     '
  appears   that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as
· found by the High Court and the trial court. That apart,
  commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17
  in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the
  limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit,              B
  examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing
  of arguments. As noted hereinbefore, parties are yet to file their
  documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application
  for amendment of the written statement in view o{J:itcwiso to
  Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which confers wide power and.unfettered          c
  discretion on the court to allow an amendment of the written
  statement at any stage of the· proceedings."

       (iv)   Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K. K. Modi
              and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 385, at paras 15 & 16:          D

      "15. The object of the rule is that the courts should try .the
      merits of the case that come before them and should,
      consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary
      for determining the real question in controversy between
      the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice    E
      to the other side.

      16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Whereas the
      first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the court
      to order amendment of pleading. The second part is
      imperative (shall) and enjoins the court to allow all
                                                                       F
      amendments which are necessary for the purpose of
      determining the real question in controversy between the
      parties."

       (v)    Revajeetu Builders and Developers v.                     G
              Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others, (2009) 10
              sec 84, at para 63:
      "63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian
      cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be            H
    154      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A         taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the
          application for amendment:
          (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper
          and effective adjudication of the case;
B         (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or
          mala fide;

          (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the
          other side which cannot be compensated adequately in
c         terms of money;

          (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or
          lead to multiple litigation;
          (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
D         fundamentally changes the nature and character of the
          case; and
          (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments
          if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by
E         limitation on the date of application.

    These are some of the important factors which may be kept in
    mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17.
    These are only illustrative and not exhaustive."

F       The above principles make it clear that Courts have ample
  power to allow the application for amendment of the plaint.
  However, it must be satisfied that the same is required in the
  interest of justice and for the purpose of determination of real
  question in controversy between the parties. We have already
G pointed out the relief prayed for in the plaint. According to the
  plaintiff-State of Madhya Pradesh, the Notifications/Orders
  dated 02.11.2004 and 04.11.2004 have to b& declared null and
  void since the same are unconstitutional and in violation of
  Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The other relief, prayed
H for by the plaintiff, is to direct the 1st Defendant-Union of India
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA & 155
           ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
to dissolve the MPEB in consonance with the orders/directions         A
dated 12.04.2001, 04.12.2001 and 23.05.2003 passed by the
Union of India under Section 58(4) of MPR Act. In addition,
the plaintiff-State of M.P. has also prayed for to direct the Union
of India by way of mandatory injunction to perform its
constitutional and statutory duty to lay down proper criteria for     B
apportionment of assets, rights and liabilities in accordance
with law and to ensure equitable, just, fair and reasonable
apportionment of assets, rights and liabilities amongst the
successor Boards on the basis of revenue potential so as to
avoid undue hardship and disadvantage to any of the                   C
successor Boards.

     11. Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for the
plaintiff-State of M.P., by drawing our attention to various
averments in the plaint relating to the purported exercise of
power by the Central Government submitted that the same               D
being arbitrary, unjust and unfair had resulted in serious
anomalies in the apportionment of assets and liabilities by the
impugned Notifications/Orders dated 02.11.2004 and
04.11.2004. He also pointed out that the impugned
Notifications/Orders have resulted in an unequal division of          E
generating capacity, created a huge gap in demand and supply,
affectirig the power supply and also the finances of the Board
of the plaintiff-State. He further pointed out that Sections 58(3)
and 58(4) of MPR Act provided unguided powers to the Central
Government to determine the apportionment of assets, rights           F
and liabilities .between the successor States of M.P. and
Chhattisgarh. According to him, these provisions do not
provide for the Central Government to record reasons in
support of its decision. In the absence of any guidelines, any
decision by the Central Government is arbitrary, unjust, unfair,      G
unreasonable, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, in particular. In those circumstances,
according to him, the amendment of plaint sought for is
reasonable and acceptable.
                                                                      H
    156      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A        12. As against the above claim, Mr Rawal, learned ASG,
    appearing for the Union of India submitted that there is no merit
    in the claim for amendment of plaint. At any rate, the
    amendment sought for is not maintainable at this juncture.

       13. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned senior counsel for
8 second Defendant-State of Chhattisgarh strongly objected the
  proposed amendment both on the ground of delay and !aches
  and on merits. Mr. Prasad highlighted that verification of the
  Court proceedings would show that the pleadings in the suit are
  complete, evidence by way of affidavits has been filed, issues
C for adjudication have been framed, admission/denial of
  documents filed in support of the pleadings have taken place
  and the suit is now to be finally heard by this Court. He also
  contended that the application at this belated stage is not
  maintainable.
D
       14. It is not in dispute that after co.nplying all the formalities .
  even as early as on 16.04.2007, this Court has framed issues
  and asrightly pointed out by Mr Prasad, the suit could have
  been disposed of by that time, however, the plaintiff has filed
E the present application for amendment of plaint at this belated
  stage. It is true that there is no embargo in Order VI Rule 17
  of the Code and in Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Rules which alone
  govern the procedural aspects. However, the fact remains that
  the plaintiff has not assigned any reason for not taking steps
F when the Stat~ had approached this Court under Article 131
  by way of a suit even in the year 2004 and waited till 2009.

         15. The next objection of the learned counsel for the 2nd
 · Defendant is that in the light of the language used in Rule 8 of
   Order XXVI of the Rules, the present application for amendment
G substantially alters the nature of /is/claim originally preferred by
   the plaintiff-State of M.P. We have already adverted to the
   reliefs prayed for in the suit. The main relief relates to scope
   and manner of exercise of power by the Central Government
   under Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of.the MPR Act qua dissolution
H of the erstwhile MPEB and apportionment of its assets, rights
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA & 157
           ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
and liabilities between the successor Electricity Boards of the        A
reorganized States. The claim was that the purported exercise
of power by the Central Government was arbitrary, unjust and
unfair and had resulted in serious anomalies in apportionment
of assets and liabilities between the two Boards by the
impugned Notification/Orders dated 02.11.2004 and                      B
04.11.2004. What was challenged was the manner of exercise
of power by the Central Government and not the statutory
provisions in the form of Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR
Act which vested such powers in the Central Government. As
rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the              c
defendants throughout the pendency of the suit since
01.12.2004, no issue whatsoever was ever raised by the
plaintiff as to the validity or constitutionality of these statutory
provisions.

      16. It is brought to our notice that MPEB being the              D
successor Electricity Board for the reorganized State of M.P.,
a necessary party to the present /is, had filed a separate Writ
Petition being No. 675 of 2004 before this Court under Article
32 of the Constitution of India where identical pleadings and
prayers were made. There is no serious dispute as to the relief        E
prayed in the said writ petition. Though the MPEB approached
this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 32, admittedly,
the vires of those sections were never challenged.
Subsequently, the said writ petition being No. 675 of 2004
along with three other writ petitions were disposed of by this         F
Court vide judgment dated 13.09.2006. It is not clear and not
explained to this Court why such recourse was not adopted
when the MPEB itself had approached this Court by way of a
writ petition to challenge the vires of those provisions and,
ultimately, this Court dismissed the said writ petition filed by       G
the Board. It is to be noted that this Court did not find any
infirmity whatsoever in the manner of exercise of power by the
Central Government under Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR
Act while upholding the notifications dated 02.11.2004 and
04.11.2004 as being constitutional and not suffering from any          H
    158      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A vice of arbitrariness as claimed by the plaintiff-State of M.P.
  and MPEB. It was also pointed out and also not in dispute that
  in the said writ petition, the present plaintiff was also a party,
  even then the plea of constitutionality was not raised.

B       17. By way of present amendment, the plaintiff-State of
  M.P. is seeking to challenge the validity of the Central law in a
  proceeding (suit) initiated under Article 131 of the Constitution.
  Normally, for questions relating to validity of Central or other
  laws, the appropriate forum is the extraordinary writ jurisdiction
  under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India in a writ
C petition and not an original suit filed under Article 131 which
  vests exclusive jurisdiction of this Court as regards the dispute
  enumerated therein. It is relevant to point out that Article 131A
  of the Constitution inserted by (42nd Amendment) Act 1976,
  provides for exclusive jurisdiction to this Court in regard to
D questions as to constitutionality of Central laws. The said
  Article 131 A viewed as substantially curtailing the power of
  judicial review of the writ courts, that is, High Courts under
  Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 was omitted vide
  Constitution (43rd Amendment) Act, 1977. It follows that when
E the Central laws can be challenged in the State High Courts
  as well and also before this Court under Article 32, normally,
  no recourse can be permitted to challenge the validity of a
  Central law under the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court
  provided under Article 131.
F
       18. As regards the absence of guidelines in the provisions
  of Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of MPR Act, on behalf of the
  defendants it was pointed out that the manner of exercise of
  power by the Central Government has been laid down in the
G Sections itself. It is further pointed out that various
  correspondences exchanged between the plaintiff and the
  defendants placed on record would show that the plaintiff has
  never acted under the very same provisions, instead the
  plaintiff-State has constituted its own Electricity Board. It is also
H pointed out that the 1st Defendant-Union of India, in its written
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. UNION OF INDIA & 159 .
           ANR. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 statement highlighted that the Central Government did resolve            A
 the dispute by passing the impugned Notifications after
 considering the claims of the affected parties.

       19. Finally, the original plaint proceeds that the exercise
of power by the Central Government by passing the impugned
Notifications dated 02.11.2004 and 04.11.2004 under Sections 8
58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR Act was arbitrary, unjust and unfair
and had resulted in serious anomalies in the apportionment of
assets and liabilities. In our view, after praying for such relief,
if the amendment as sought for by the plaintiff is allowed and
the plaintiff is permitted to challenge the vires of the said C
provisions, then the very basis on which the plaintiff is claiming
its right to apportionment of assets, rights and liabilities of the
undivided Board will cease to be in existence and the entire
suit of the plaintiff will be rendered infructuous. Moreover, it is
settled principle of law that leave to amend will be refused if it D
introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case or
challenges the fundamental character of the suit.

       20. In spite of the above conclusion, we feel that the plaintiff
  may be given an opportunity to put forth its stand that the             E
. Central Government issued impugned Notifications/Orders
  without proper guidelines and affording opportunity to the
  parties concerned. It is made clear that we have not either
  accepted or concluded the said claim of the plaintiff but in the
  interest of justice, plaintiff-State of M.P. is permitted to raise      F
 such objections at the time of trial by placing acceptable
  materials.
    21. With the above observation, I.A. No. 4 of 2009 is
disposed of with no order as to costs.
                                                                          G
8.8.8.                      Interlocutory Application disposed of.