Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 47 of 2010 pending before the 4th Senior Civil Court, Porbandar, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03/09/2024 passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit 68, which rejected the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner sought to join Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as additional defendants in the suit, which was filed in 2010. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the trial had already commenced and the petitioner failed to show due diligence in seeking the amendment at an earlier stage. The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the suit was of the year 2010 and the application for amendment was filed in 2024, i.e., after 14 years. The Court observed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) prohibits amendments after the trial has commenced unless the court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Since the trial had begun and the petitioner did not provide any explanation for the delay or demonstrate due diligence, the High Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court's order. The petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Due Diligence - The petitioner sought to amend the plaint to add new defendants after 14 years of filing the suit, which was rejected by the Trial Court for lack of due diligence. The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that the amendment could not be allowed as the trial had already commenced and the petitioner failed to show any diligence in seeking the amendment earlier. (Paras 1-8) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Pre-trial vs Post-trial - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC bars amendments after the trial has commenced unless the court is satisfied that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Since the trial had begun and no due diligence was shown, the amendment was rightly rejected. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint seeking to add new defendants after 14 years of filing the suit, on the ground of lack of due diligence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Trial Court's order rejecting the amendment application. The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Amendment of pleadings
- Due diligence
- Pre-trial amendment
- Post-trial amendment
- Article 227 Constitution of India
