Amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial require showing due diligence; failure to do so warrants dismissal, especially if the amendment fundamentally alters the nature of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.3152 of 2018 titled “Sanjeev Kumar and another v. Sunil Kumar and another”, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. They have approached this Court assailing the order dated 20.11.2025, whereby their application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that plaintiff No.1–Sanjeev Kumar and defendant No.1–Sunil Kumar are real brothers. Plaintiff No.2 is the wife of plaintiff No.1, whereas defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is the brother-in-law of defendant No.1. The dispute pertains to House No.1629, Sector 52, Chandigarh, which was allotted to Jaswant Singh i.e., the father of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs instituted the suit in the year 2018 alleging that, pursuant to a family settlement, they were in possession of the first floor of the house, while the defendants were residing on the second floor. Apprehending forcible dispossession, the plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their alleged possession over the first floor of the house.

3. The defendants contested the suit. Issues were framed and the mater proceeded to the stage of recording of evidence.

4. It was only in the year 2025 that the plaintiffs moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC, contending that during the pendency of the suit, they were dispossessed from the first floor of the house on 16.01.2020. On this basis, they sought amendment of the plaint to incorporate the said fact and to amend the relief clause by seeking restoration of possession of the first floor.

5. The defendants opposed the application, asserting that the plaintiffs had not been forcibly dispossessed but had voluntarily vacated the premises on 16.01.2020 pursuant to proceedings initiated by their father under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It was further pleaded that after vacation of the premises by the plaintiffs, their father made a statement before the competent authority seeking withdrawal of the proceedings, and that he subsequently expired on 31.03.2022.

6. The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the mater, observed that if the plaintiffs were indeed dispossessed on 16.01.2020, as alleged, the application seeking amendment filed on 14.10.2025 was grossly belated and hit by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the plaintiffs could otherwise institute a separate suit for possession, the amendment ought to have been allowed so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

8. This Court does not find any merit in the aforesaid contention.

9. It is well setled that though amendments are generally to be allowed for determining the real controversy between the parties. However, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC places a clear embargo on allowing amendments aAer commencement of trial unless the party seeking amendment demonstrates that despite due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The requirement of due diligence is mandatory and not a mere formality.

10. In the present case, the suit was instituted in the year 2018 as a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction, premised on the plaintiffs’ alleged possession. According to the plaintiffs’ own case, they were dispossessed in January, 2020. Even thereaAer, the suit c