The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the stringent requirement of due diligence for seeking amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In dismissing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court underscored that mere delay, without satisfactory explanation, cannot justify amendments at a belated stage, particularly when the alleged subsequent events were already within the knowledge of the parties.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sarita Diwan & others, filed a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 187 of 2020) before the Senior Civil Judge, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents, Mukhtiaro Devi & others. The injunction was sought to restrain the respondents from:
- Raising any construction on the suit land,
- Digging the land for construction,
- Changing the nature of the land, or
- Covering the best portion of the suit land.
The suit land comprises:
- Khata No. 38 Min, Khatauni No. 39, Khasra No. 313/166, measuring 0-10-67 hectares, situated in Mohal Kheri, Mauza Naughi, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, and
- Khata No. 39, Khatauni No. 40, Khasra No. 310/145, measuring 0-01-93 hectares, in the same locality.
The petitioners claimed co-ownership of the suit land along with the respondents and alleged that the land had not been partitioned by metes and bounds. They further contended that the respondents, being strong-headed, had begun collecting construction material to forcibly raise a structure on the best portion of the land, abutting the National Highway Dharamshala-Shimla.
Relief Sought
In addition to the injunction, the petitioners sought:
- Demolition and possession of any construction raised during the pendency of the suit, and
- A declaration that the respondents’ actions were illegal and aimed at grabbing the best portion of the land.
The Respondents’ Defence
The respondents contested the suit, raising preliminary objections:
- The suit was not maintainable,
- The petitioners lacked locus standi,
- The petitioners had suppressed material facts and were estopped by their conduct, and
- The respondents were entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC for a frivolous and vexatious suit.
On merits, the respondents contended:
- The suit land had already been partitioned through mutual arrangement,
- They were in separate possession of their share,
- They had developed their land by spending substantial amounts, and
- The alleged tin shed was constructed in March 2020, prior to the filing of the suit, with the consent of the petitioners.
Procedural History
The timeline of key events is as follows:
- February 2020: Respondents purchased part of Khasra No. 313/166 and took possession.
- March 2020: Respondents constructed an iron/tin shed on their share.
- 2020: Suit (Civil Suit No. 187/2020) filed by petitioners.
- Post-2020: Petitioners alleged that respondents raised additional construction during the pendency of the suit.
- 30.04.2024: Petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend their pleadings, alleging that respondents had raised a new tin shed in August-September 2020 and encroached upon Khasra No. 310/145.
- 09.02.2026: Trial Court dismissed the amendment application.
- 2026: Present petition (CMPMO No. 162 of 2026) filed under Article 227 challenging the trial court’s order.
The Amendment Application
The petitioners sought to amend para 3(a) of the plaint, alleging:
- Respondents had raised a new tin shed during the pendency of the suit (August-September 2020), and
- Respondents had encroached upon Khasra No. 310/145.
The respondents opposed the application, arguing:
- The application was filed after the commencement of trial,
- There was no explanation for the 4-year delay,
- The alleged tin shed was already in existence before the suit was filed, and
- The application was a delaying tactic.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, where the petitioners sought to amend their pleadings after the commencement of trial, without demonstrating due diligence?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The trial court failed to consider the Local Commissioner’s report, which allegedly proved the existence of a new tin shed.
- The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the application without proper inquiry.
- The amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties.
For the Respondents
- The application was filed after the commencement of trial, triggering the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
- The petitioners failed to demonstrate due diligence, as the alleged construction occurred in August-September 2020, but the application was moved only on 30.04.2024 (a delay of nearly 4 years).
- The written statement already acknowledged the existence of the tin shed, rendering the amendment unnecessary.
- The application was frivolous and vexatious, aimed at delaying the trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied on precedents to delineate the scope of Article 227 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC:
-
Scope of Article 227: The Court cited K. Valarmathi & ors. v. Kumaresan (2025 INSC 606), emphasizing that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to:
- Usurp the original jurisdiction of the subordinate court,
- Supplant statutory remedies (e.g., appeal under Section 96 CPC), or
- Reappreciate evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court.
The Court also referred to Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu (2026 INSC 434), which laid down that Article 227 can only be invoked in cases of:
- Unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction,
- Gross abuse of jurisdiction, or
- Unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
The Court held that no such grounds were made out in the present case.
-
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Due Diligence: The Court examined the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which states:
“Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
The term “due diligence” was interpreted in light of Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand ((2008) 5 SCC 117), where the Supreme Court held:
- Due diligence means reasonable diligence, not everything possible.
- A party must take prompt steps to seek amendments; mere delay without explanation is fatal.
- In that case, a delay of 18 years in seeking amendment was held unacceptable.
Applying this principle, the Court observed:
“A bare reading of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC mandated that the application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
The petitioners failed to explain the 4-year delay in moving the application. The Court noted:
- The written statement already mentioned the existence of the tin shed, and
- The petitioners did not demonstrate due diligence in their application.
The Court concluded that the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction in dismissing the application.
The Verdict
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition (CMPMO No. 162 of 2026) and upheld the trial court’s order dated 09.02.2026, rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Court held that:
- The petitioners failed to demonstrate due diligence,
- The delay of 4 years was unexplained, and
- The trial court’s decision was well-reasoned and within jurisdiction.
No costs or further directions were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Due Diligence Is Non-Negotiable for Late Amendments
- Practitioners must act promptly: If seeking amendments after trial commencement, parties must demonstrate due diligence by explaining why the matter could not be raised earlier.
- Delay without explanation is fatal: Courts are unlikely to entertain amendments sought years after the alleged event, especially when the opposing party has already taken a stand in their pleadings.
Amendment Applications Must Be Precise and Well-Founded
- Specificity is key: Amendment applications must clearly state the grounds for delay and how due diligence was exercised.
- Avoid vague allegations: General claims of “subsequent events” without chronological clarity (e.g., exact dates, prior knowledge) are likely to be rejected.
Trial Courts Have Wide Discretion in Amendment Matters
- High Courts will not interfere lightly: Under Article 227, High Courts will not reappreciate evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the trial court unless there is a gross jurisdictional error.
- Burden is on the applicant: The party seeking amendment must prove due diligence; mere allegations of new construction without corroborative evidence (e.g., Local Commissioner’s report) may not suffice.
