amended shape was brought on the statute book w.e.f. 1.7.2002 by the Act No.22 of 2002. This amended provision consists of two parts. The first part has been discussed above, whereas, in the second part, no absolute bar has been created by the statute regarding amendment of the pleadings yet, it envisaged that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of the trial. However, if the parties to the proceedings are able to satisfy the Court that in spite of the due diligence, the party could not raise issue before the commencement of the trial and the Court on having been satisfied about the explanation submitted before it, could allow the amendment even after the commencement of the trial. The law of amendment has been very liberal since the very beginning. It envisages that at the time of deciding the application for amendment, the approach of the Court should be liberal to ensure that substantial justice is not denied. The procedural law is handmaid of the administration of justice, meant to advance its cause, than to frustrate the same. When the substantial justice and the procedural law come in confrontation with each other, then the former would prevail over the later. It was observed in case Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 S.C. 1267 as under:“rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of the procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by this blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may, be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.”
