Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1102 of 2017 before the II Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 21.04.2025 rejecting his application (I.A. No. 1/2022) for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The original suit was filed in 2017 seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property. The suit progressed through the usual adversarial course: defendant No. 1 filed his written statement on 14.03.2018, defendants 2 and 3 on 11.04.2018, and defendants 4 and 5 on 28.11.2018. Issues were framed on 26.11.2019, and the trial was in full stride with evidence having been led in and the case being at the stage of cross-examination. After a lapse of nearly 5 years, on 09.11.2022, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the amendment was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which prohibits amendments after the trial has commenced unless the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial despite due diligence. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the trial court's order. The court observed that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to seek the amendment earlier but failed to do so, and the delay was unexplained. The amendment was sought after the trial had commenced, and the plaintiff did not demonstrate any due diligence. The court held that the trial court's order was just and proper and did not warrant interference under Article 227. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Proviso - Trial Commenced - The plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint after the trial had commenced and evidence was being recorded. The court held that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC bars any amendment after the trial has begun unless the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial despite due diligence. The plaintiff failed to show any such diligence, and the amendment was sought after a lapse of nearly 5 years. The trial court's rejection of the application was upheld. (Paras 3-6) B) Civil Procedure - Due Diligence - Laches - Abuse of Process - The plaintiff filed the amendment application after the issues were framed and cross-examination was underway. The court noted that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to seek amendment earlier and the delay was unexplained. The amendment was held to be an abuse of the process of law, aimed at delaying the trial. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint filed after the commencement of trial, in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 21.04.2025 rejecting I.A. No. 1/2022 for amendment of the plaint. The court held that the amendment was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC as the trial had commenced and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Proviso to Order VI Rule 17
- Trial commencement
- Due diligence
- Laches
- Abuse of process
