Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. C M Bhagyalakshmamma, filed a suit (O.S.No.123/2014) before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakur, seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated 31.03.2011 was null and void. During the pendency of the suit, after the commencement of trial and while the plaintiff's evidence was being recorded, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to amend the plaint to include an alternative relief of specific performance of contract. The trial court dismissed the application on 23.11.2022, holding that the amendment was sought after the commencement of trial and that the plaintiff had failed to show due diligence as required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court heard the matter and reserved orders on 04.09.2025, pronouncing the judgment on 25.09.2025. The court considered the submissions of both sides, noting that the amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that it did not change the nature of the suit. The court observed that the trial court had not considered the fact that the amendment was sought during the course of evidence and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the amendment application, directing the trial court to permit the amendment and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment after commencement of trial - The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to include an alternative relief of specific performance of contract, which was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the amendment was sought after commencement of trial and the plaintiff failed to show due diligence. The High Court held that the amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and did not change the nature of the suit, and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. The court allowed the amendment, setting aside the trial court's order. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Due Diligence - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires that amendment after commencement of trial must be shown to have been not available despite due diligence. The High Court found that the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and the need for alternative relief arose during the course of evidence, and thus the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed after commencement of trial, and whether the amendment sought was necessary for determination of the real controversy between the parties.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakur, and allowed the I.A under Order VI Rule 17 CPC permitting the amendment of plaint. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- commencement of trial
- due diligence
- alternative relief
- prejudice
