The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that courts cannot permit amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial unless the party demonstrates due diligence in failing to raise the matter earlier. This ruling clarifies the mandatory nature of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reinforces procedural discipline in civil litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a title suit filed in 2016 by respondent No. 1, seeking declaration of ownership and possession over a property, and challenging the validity of a sale deed dated 31.05.2016. The petitioners, as defendants, filed a written statement denying the claims. Issues were framed, and the plaintiff completed his evidence before seeking to amend the plaint.
Procedural History
- 2016: Civil Suit No. 394-A/2016 filed by respondent No. 1
- Prior to 2021: Written statement filed by defendants; issues framed
- Closure of plaintiff’s evidence: Completed before December 2021
- 23.12.2021: Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed to amend plaint, including addition of paragraph 12-A
- 03.09.2022: Trial Court allowed amendment without recording satisfaction of due diligence
- 2023: Writ petition filed before Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the amendment order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the trial court’s order allowing amendment, arguing that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was violated due to absence of any finding on due diligence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of a plaint after closure of plaintiff’s evidence, in the absence of a judicial finding that the party exercised due diligence and was nevertheless precluded from seeking the amendment earlier.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the amendment application was filed after evidence had closed and the trial had progressed to the stage of recording defendants’ evidence. Reliance was placed on Pandit Malhari Mahale v. Monika Pandit Mahale to contend that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC imposes a jurisdictional bar unless the court records satisfaction that the party, despite due diligence, could not have raised the matter earlier. The absence of such a finding rendered the order illegal.
For the Respondent
Respondent No. 1 contended that no prejudice would result from allowing the amendment, and that the substance of the claim remained unchanged. Alternatively, he sought liberty to file a fresh application complying with the proviso, if the writ petition succeeded.
The Court's Analysis
The Chhattisgarh High Court examined the procedural posture and the statutory mandate under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It emphasized that the proviso is not a mere procedural formality but a jurisdictional condition. The Court noted that the trial court had not recorded any finding regarding whether respondent No. 1, despite exercising due diligence, was prevented from seeking the amendment before commencement of trial.
"It is primal duty of the Court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction."
The Court cited Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr. to underscore that the proviso creates a non-negotiable threshold. The failure to record satisfaction on due diligence rendered the order void ab initio. The Court further held that allowing amendments at such a late stage, without compliance, undermines the finality of pleadings and prejudices the opposing party.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial is impermissible unless the court records a finding of due diligence. The impugned order was set aside, but liberty was granted to respondent No. 1 to file a fresh application in compliance with the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Due Diligence Is Not Optional
- Practitioners must now explicitly plead and prove due diligence in every amendment application filed after framing of issues
- Courts must record a specific finding on due diligence - general observations are insufficient
- Failure to do so renders the order void and subject to writ jurisdiction
Late Amendments Risk Dismissal
- Applications filed after evidence closure are presumptively invalid unless the party demonstrates unavoidable delay
- Courts should not rely on assurances of no prejudice; the statutory bar under the proviso is absolute
- Practitioners should avoid tactical delays and file amendments at the earliest possible stage
Liberty to File Fresh Application Is Not a Right
- While the Court granted liberty to file a fresh application, this is discretionary and not automatic
- A fresh application must strictly comply with the proviso and include affidavits substantiating due diligence
- Courts may reject subsequent applications if the delay remains unexplained or appears dilatory
