Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are defendants in O.S. No. 8816/2003 pending before the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the trial court allowing the plaintiffs (respondents herein) to amend the plaint. The suit was filed in 2003 for declaration and injunction. After 17 years, in 2020, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to incorporate new facts regarding the nature of the property and the relationship between the parties. The trial court allowed the amendment, observing that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. The petitioners contended that the amendment was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as the trial had already commenced and the plaintiffs failed to show due diligence. The High Court examined the records and found that the trial had indeed commenced, and the amendment sought to introduce entirely new facts that could have been pleaded earlier. The court held that the trial court had erred in allowing the amendment without considering the mandatory requirement of due diligence. The High Court quashed the impugned order and dismissed the application for amendment. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Due Diligence - The petitioners challenged the trial court order allowing amendment of plaint after 17 years of filing the suit. The High Court held that the amendment sought to introduce new facts and change the nature of the suit, and the plaintiffs failed to show any due diligence for not raising the plea earlier. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC prohibits amendment after commencement of trial unless the party could not have raised the matter before trial despite due diligence. The court found no such diligence and quashed the order. (Paras 1-10)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Supervisory Power - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct an error of law committed by the trial court in allowing the amendment. The court held that the trial court's order suffered from patent illegality and was liable to be set aside. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the amendment of the plaint after 17 years of filing the suit, without considering the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requiring due diligence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 8816/2003, and dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint.
Law Points
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Amendment of pleadings
- Due diligence
- Delay and laches
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (09) 51
Writ Petition No.14173 of 2020 (GM-CPC)
Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao
Smt. Shalini and Smt. Malini
Sri Srinivasa, Sri Channaraya, Sri K Muralikrishna, Sri K Mohammed Wajeed Pasha, Sri Munibachappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging trial court order allowing amendment of plaint.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 8816/2003 allowing amendment of plaint.
Filing Reason
The trial court allowed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint after 17 years of filing the suit, despite the trial having commenced and without the plaintiffs showing due diligence.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the amendment application vide order dated 28.09.2020.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the amendment of the plaint after 17 years of filing the suit, without considering the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requiring due diligence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the amendment was sought after the trial had commenced and the plaintiffs failed to show any due diligence for not raising the plea earlier, thus barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Respondents (plaintiffs) contended that the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the defendants and was necessary for the just adjudication of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC prohibits amendment of pleadings after the commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that the party could not have raised the matter before the trial despite due diligence. In this case, the plaintiffs sought amendment after 17 years and after the trial had commenced, without showing any due diligence. Therefore, the trial court's order allowing the amendment was patently illegal and liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
The Writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1908, praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the learned XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.8816/2003, found at Annexure ‘H’ allow this writ petition with costs, and grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders on 28.07.2025 and coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day, Dr. K.MANMADHA RAO, J., pronounced the following: CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO)
Procedural History
The suit O.S. No. 8816/2003 was filed in 2003. In 2020, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The trial court allowed the application on 28.09.2020. The defendants (petitioners herein) challenged that order by filing the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was heard and reserved for orders on 28.07.2025, and the order was pronounced on 08.09.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI Rule 17
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 227
