A court can deny amendment requests under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC if due diligence is lacking after trial commencement.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the dismissal of the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC:

• The petitioners filed a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the dismissal of their application for amendment of the plaint, which was originally filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the trial court. (!)
• The suit was filed in 2012 challenging a sale deed dated 26.10.2012, but the petitioners later sought to amend the plaint in 2019 to also challenge an earlier sale deed dated 05.09.2011. (!) [2]
• The trial court dismissed the amendment application on 03.08.2019, observing that the petitioners had not acted with due diligence given the timing of the request relative to the commencement of the trial. (!) [9]
• The respondents argued that the earlier sale deed was already referenced in the challenged 2012 deed, mentioned in the revenue records, pleaded in the written statement, and that the petitioners had ample opportunity to raise the issue before the trial commenced. [3]
• The court noted that the trial was deemed to have commenced when issues were framed on 06.03.2014, and the amendment application was filed in 2019, well after the petitioners had been given the last opportunity to conclude their evidence. [3][8]
• Under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, an application for amendment after the trial has commenced is only allowed if the party demonstrates due diligence and could not have raised the matter before the trial commenced. (!) [10]
• The court found that the facts supporting the amendment were within the knowledge of the petitioners prior to the commencement of the trial, meaning the requirement of due diligence was not met. [8]
• Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha, the court upheld the trial court's decision, noting that the High Court cannot act as a court of appeal and must exercise its superintendence powers sparingly. [4][12][13]
• Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed as meritless because the amendment was barred by the lack of due diligence under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. [5][14]

Judgment :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in case bearing No.CS-47615-2013 dated 06.08.2013 titled as 'Harbans Kaur and another Vs. Mohinder Singh and others' vide which an application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration in the year 2012 to the effect that the sale deed dated 26.10.2012 executed by defendant No.l in favour of Madhu Jain, wife of Anoop Jain, is illegal, null and void. It is submitted that other prayers including the prayer for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction were also made. It is argued that subsequently, the petitioners came to know that sale deed dated 05.09.2011 was executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.l which was also illegal and thus, the petitioners moved an application dated 12.07.2019 (Annexure P3) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and in the same, they wanted to make an amendment to challenge the said sale deed dated 05.09.2011. It is submitted that the said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2019 which is against law and deserves to be set aside and application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint deserves to be allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the present revision petition and have submitted that the present suit was filed in the year 2012 and one of the prayer made in the suit (Annexure P-1) was for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 26.10.2012 was null and void. It is submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would show that reference of the earlier sale deed dated 05.09.2011 was made in the sale deed dated 26.10.2012 itself and thus, once, the petitioners-plaintiffs were challenging the sale deed dated 26.10.2012, it was apparent that they had knowledge about the said sale deed dated 05.09.2011. It is further submitted that the mutation with respect to the said sale deed dated 05.09.2011, executed by Ludhiana Improvement Trust in favour of defendant No.l, was also duly sanctioned and it is only because defendant No.l had become owner that he could have executed subsequent sale deed dated 26.10.2012, which has been challenged in the suit. It is argued that the written statement was filed by defendant No.3 on 24.12.2012, and a specific pleading with respect to sale deed dated 05.09.2011 was made at that stage and thereafter, petitioner No.l/plaintiff No.l had come for examination in chief on 23.02.2015 and the sale deed dated 26.10.2012 was exhibited by her as Ex.PW2/l. It is submitted that the issues in the present case were framed on 06.03.2014, and thus, it is apparent that the trial had commenced and it is after a period of five years from the trial having commenced that the present application dated 12.07.2019 was filed, at a time when repeated adjournments were being sought by the plaintiffs to conclude their evidence and after last opportunity having been granted to conclude the same. It is submitted that there has been no due diligence on the part of the petitioners in filing the application for amendment, and thus, amendment is hit by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC .

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have further submitted that at any rate, challenge to the sale deed dated 05.09.2011 in the year 2019 would be barred by limitation, more so, when factum of the said sale deed is duly reflected in the revenue record and has also