The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that amendments to written statements under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be permitted at a belated stage when the facts sought to be introduced were known to the party for years. This ruling underscores the necessity of procedural fairness and the imperative to prevent undue prolongation of litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shri Raj Kumar Saraf, filed an eviction suit against the opposite party, Shri Pankaj Kedia, a tenant, seeking possession of premises at 5, Princeep Street, Kolkata. The suit was instituted in 2010 and had been pending for over 15 years. The tenant filed multiple applications for amendment of his written statement, the latest being on May 25, 2025, after the conclusion of evidence and just before arguments were to commence.
Key Facts
- The suit was filed in 2010 seeking eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent and need for personal occupation
- The tenant filed his original written statement in 2011
- The first application for amendment was filed in 2018
- The second application for amendment was filed in 2022
- The third and impugned application was filed on May 25, 2025
- The proposed amendments sought to introduce:
- Death of the plaintiff’s wife and son
- Closure of the plaintiff’s business at 11, Nalini Sett Road in 2019
- Continued GST filings under the closed business address
- Availability of residential space in the suit building for commercial use
- Details of the plaintiff’s family members residing in the suit building
Procedural History
- 2010: Ejectment suit filed by petitioner
- 2011: Original written statement filed by tenant
- 2013: Petitioner amended his plaint to disclose closure of business at 11, Nalini Sett Road
- 2018: First application for amendment of written statement filed by tenant - dismissed
- 2022: Second application filed on April 12, 2022 - partially allowed
- 2023: Depositions of DW 2 (Shri Ramesh Kumar Kedia) and DW 5 (Mr. Anil Agarwal) completed - both testified to facts later sought to be amended
- May 22, 2025: Order No. 141 recorded cross-examination of DW 5 confirming business closure
- August 13, 2024: Trial Court’s order recorded death of plaintiff’s son
- May 25, 2025: Third application for amendment filed
- December 17, 2025: Trial Court allowed amendment, holding it was for "proper adjudication"
- January 2026: Revision petition filed before Calcutta High Court
- April 1, 2026: Hearing concluded; judgment delivered same day
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that all facts sought to be introduced were known to the tenant since at least 2023, evidenced by witness depositions and prior pleadings. The amendment was a dilatory tactic to delay final adjudication.
Respondent (Tenant): Contended that the death of the plaintiff’s son was only known from the court order dated August 13, 2024, and that other facts emerged only after evidence was closed.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the Trial Court’s order dated December 17, 2025, which allowed the belated amendment, and restoration of the status quo pending final disposal of the ejectment suit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits amendment of a written statement at a belated stage - after closure of evidence - when the facts sought to be introduced were known to the party for years, and no explanation is offered for the delay.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the proposed amendments were not new and were already within the tenant’s knowledge as early as 2023, as evidenced by the deposition of DW 2 and cross-examination of DW 5. The fact of business closure was already disclosed in the plaintiff’s 2013 amended plaint. The death of the son, even if accepted as newly known in August 2024, was not raised until May 2025 - over nine months later - without justification. The amendment was a clear attempt to delay the suit, which had already been pending for 15 years.
For the Respondent
The tenant’s counsel contended that the death of the plaintiff’s son was only recorded in the court’s order dated August 13, 2024, and thus the tenant could not have pleaded it earlier. He argued that the amendment was necessary for a complete adjudication of the suit, particularly regarding the plaintiff’s alleged need for personal occupation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the principles governing amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, recalling that while amendments are to be allowed to ensure justice, they must not be permitted to defeat the ends of justice by causing undue delay.
"It is settled law that amendments which are necessary for proper adjudication and determination of the issues in suit must be allowed, it is equally settled that amendments which lack bona fide and which are aimed at delaying and undue-protraction of proceedings, should be nipped in the bud."
The Court noted that the Trial Court itself had observed that the tenant "had not shown that despite due diligence, he could not bring such amendment earlier." This finding alone rendered the allowance of the amendment legally unsustainable.
The Court further held that the facts sought to be introduced were not only known but had been part of the evidence on record since 2023. The testimony of DW 2 and DW 5, along with the plaintiff’s 2013 amended plaint and the exhibit of the building plan (Exhibit 7), rendered the proposed amendments redundant and dilatory.
The Court rejected the tenant’s reliance on the August 13, 2024 order regarding the son’s death, observing that even if the knowledge was acquired then, the application was filed nine months later without any explanation. The Court emphasized that the burden of justifying delay lies squarely on the party seeking amendment.
The Court concluded that allowing such amendments at the fag end of trial, after evidence is closed, would encourage tactical litigation and undermine the finality of proceedings.
The Verdict
The Calcutta High Court set aside the order dated December 17, 2025, allowing the belated amendment. The application for amendment filed on May 25, 2025, stands dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the Trial Court seeking withdrawal of costs imposed under the impugned order. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the ejectment suit and all pending interlocutory applications within six months from the next date fixed, in compliance with the Court’s earlier directive.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Amendments After Evidence Closure Are Presumptively Improper
- Practitioners must not file amendments after evidence is closed unless the facts are genuinely new and unforeseeable
- Delay without explanation will be fatal to the application, even if the amendment appears substantive
- Courts will scrutinize whether the facts were already in the record or known through prior pleadings or witness testimony
Knowledge of Facts Is Determined by Evidence, Not Allegation
- A party cannot claim ignorance of facts that were disclosed in witness depositions, exhibits, or earlier pleadings
- If a fact appears in a deposition or document marked in evidence, it is deemed known for the purposes of Order 6 Rule 17
- The burden of proving due diligence and lack of prior knowledge rests entirely on the applicant
Delay in Long-Pending Suits Will Be Heavily Penalized
- In suits pending over a decade, courts will be less tolerant of procedural delays
- Amendments that risk further prolonging litigation will be denied even if they appear relevant
- Courts are empowered to enforce timelines strictly, especially where higher courts have directed expeditious disposal
