The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be permitted at a belated stage if they fundamentally alter the nature of the suit, especially when the party had prior knowledge of the facts and failed to act with due diligence. This ruling clarifies the limits of judicial discretion in allowing amendments post-commencement of trial.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jaswinder Kaur, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18.11.2016, along with a claim for confirmation of possession of the suit property. The agreement pertained to a residential property in Kapurthala. The petitioner alleged that she had paid the full consideration and that possession had been delivered to her at the time of execution of the agreement.
Key Facts
- The agreement to sell was executed on 18.11.2016.
- The petitioner filed the suit on 12.03.2020.
- In the plaint, she specifically pleaded that possession of the property had been delivered to her.
- The defendants, including the deceased respondent Dheeraj Sharma, filed a written statement denying possession and asserting that they were in continuous, peaceful possession since the date of the agreement.
- The petitioner appeared as PW-1 during trial and, during cross-examination on 05.10.2025, admitted that she was not in possession of the property and that the defendants were residing there.
- Despite this admission and the defendants’ clear plea in the written statement, the petitioner did not seek amendment of the plaint at any stage prior to the conclusion of evidence.
- The trial proceeded with both parties leading evidence, and the matter reached the stage of rebuttal evidence by December 2025.
Procedural History
- 18.11.2016: Agreement to sell executed.
- 12.03.2020: Suit filed before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala.
- 15.05.2020: Written statement filed by defendants denying possession.
- 05.10.2025: Petitioner, as PW-1, admitted in cross-examination that she was not in possession.
- 10.12.2025: Conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence; defendant’s evidence commenced.
- 15.12.2025: Conclusion of defendant’s evidence; rebuttal evidence stage reached.
- 13.01.2026: Petitioner filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment to delete the phrase "confirmation of possession" from the relief clause.
- 13.01.2026: Trial Court dismissed the application.
- 21.04.2026: Revision petition dismissed by the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought permission to amend the plaint to remove the claim for "confirmation of possession" and to convert the suit into one for recovery of possession through specific performance. No monetary relief was claimed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking to change the nature of relief from "confirmation of possession" to "recovery of possession," can be allowed after the commencement of trial, where the petitioner had prior knowledge of the factual position and failed to act with due diligence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the amendment was merely clarificatory and did not introduce a new cause of action. Reliance was placed on Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh (2009) 10 SCC 626, contending that courts are empowered to allow amendments at any stage to determine the real controversy between parties. It was submitted that the deletion of "confirmation of possession" merely reflected the actual facts admitted during trial and would not prejudice the defendants.
For the Respondent
The respondents, through their counsel, contended that the amendment sought would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit - from one based on alleged existing possession to one seeking recovery of possession. This change would require re-examination of evidence, re-assessment of defenses, and potentially new pleadings on possession and title. The delay was deliberate, given that the petitioner had admitted the factual position during cross-examination and waited until rebuttal stage to seek amendment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that while amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are to be liberally allowed to ensure justice, the proviso to the rule imposes a strict condition: no amendment shall be permitted after the commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier.
"The requirement of ‘due diligence’ is thus conspicuously absent. The omission on the part of the petitioner appears to be deliberate and cannot be permitted to be rectified at such a belated stage."
The Court noted that the petitioner had been on notice from the written statement and, more critically, had herself admitted during cross-examination that she was not in possession. Yet, she waited until the rebuttal stage - after both parties had closed evidence - to seek amendment. This delay could not be excused.
Further, the Court held that the proposed amendment was not merely formal or clarificatory. By removing the claim for "confirmation of possession," the petitioner effectively sought to shift the basis of her claim from one asserting existing possession to one seeking recovery of possession. This change would alter the nature of the suit, requiring the defendants to restructure their defense and potentially introduce new evidence on title, possession, and ouster - all of which had been framed on the assumption that possession was already with the plaintiff.
"Permitting such an amendment in the present case would defeat the very object of the proviso and render the trial proceedings nugatory."
The Court concluded that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion and that no perversity or jurisdictional error warranted interference under revisional jurisdiction.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The order dated 13.01.2026 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, dismissing the application for amendment, was upheld. The petitioner’s request to delete the phrase "confirmation of possession" from the plaint was denied. All pending applications stood disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Amendments Cannot Redefine the Suit’s Core Nature
- Practitioners must identify and amend pleadings at the earliest opportunity, especially when factual admissions contradict the plaint.
- Seeking to convert a claim for "confirmation of possession" into one for "recovery of possession" constitutes a substantive change, not a mere clarification.
Due Diligence Is Non-Negotiable Post-Commencement of Trial
- Failure to move for amendment after receiving notice in the written statement or after a party’s own admission in cross-examination will be deemed a lack of due diligence.
- Courts will not permit belated amendments that disrupt the trial’s integrity, even if framed as "doing complete justice."
Trial Stage Defines the Window for Amendments
- The commencement of trial - marked by the recording of the first witness’s evidence - is the critical cutoff.
- Amendments must be sought before the defendant’s evidence begins, or at the latest, before the close of plaintiff’s evidence.
- Waiting until rebuttal stage or after conclusion of evidence will almost invariably result in dismissal.
