The court examined whether an amendment to the plaint should be allowed after the commencement of the trial. The plaintiff, an illiterate woman, sought to amend the plaint regarding certain sale deeds executed by Defendant No.1, which she claimed were not binding on her. The trial court allowed the amendment, but the defendants opposed it based on the limitation and lack of due diligence. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order, finding that the amendment should not have been allowed as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence.

The primary issue was whether the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint should be allowed after the trial had commenced, under the proviso of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The court found that due diligence was not shown by the plaintiff, who had knowledge of the sale deeds much earlier and did not act within the appropriate time frame. Consequently, the court quashed the trial court’s decision to allow the amendment.

1. Issue before the Court:

   • Para 1-2: The key issue was whether the trial court's decision to allow the plaintiff’s amendment to the plaint after trial commencement was justified.

2. Consent for Final Hearing:

   • Para 3: Both parties agreed to hear the writ petition at the admission stage.

3. Undisputed Facts:

   • Para 4: The trial had commenced, issues were framed on 15th February 2019, and the plaintiff had already been cross-examined.

4. Plaintiff’s Reason for Amendment:

   • Para 4-5: The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to bring in additional facts regarding sale deeds. The amendment was based on her illiteracy and recent receipt of certified sale-deed copies.

5. Defendants' Opposition:

   • Para 5-8: The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that it was barred by limitation and did not meet the standards of due diligence under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC.

6. Trial Court’s Reasoning:

   • Para 6-7: The trial court allowed the amendment, citing the plaintiff's illiteracy and the need to resolve the real controversy.

7. Case Law Cited:

   • Para 9-11: Both parties cited various judgments, including Ashok Daga Patil v. Daga Yadav Patil and Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, on the principles of amendment and limitation.

8. High Court’s Analysis:

   • Para 12-14: The High Court found that the plaintiff was aware of the sale deeds since their execution in 1999 and 2008 and failed to show due diligence, as required by Order 6, Rule 17, CPC.

9. Conclusion and Decision:

   • Para 15-16: The High Court set aside the trial court’s order, concluding that the amendment should not have been allowed. The writ petition was allowed, and the amendment application dismissed.

10. Stay of Order:

    • Para 18-19: The operation of the High Court’s order was stayed for three weeks upon the plaintiff’s counsel’s request.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908: This provision governs the amendment of pleadings, allowing amendments before the trial begins. After the trial commences, an amendment can only be allowed if the party shows that despite due diligence, they could not have raised the matter earlier.

Ratio Decidendi:

The High Court ruled that after the trial has commenced, amendments to pleadings can only be allowed if due diligence is shown. In this case, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate such diligence, as she had long been aware of the sale deeds in question and did not act within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, the amendment was improperly allowed by the trial court.

Subjects:

Civil Procedure, Amendments in Pleadings, Limitation, Due Diligence

Amendment of Plaint, Due Diligence, Civil Procedure, Sale Deeds, Writ Petition, Limitation, Commencement of Trial, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC