$~71

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 12.12.2025

+ CM(M) 2416/2025, CM APPL. 78531/2025 & CM APPL.

78530/2025

OM PRAKASH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate.

versus

BRAHM SINGH .....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Petitioner/defendant has assailed order dated 19.11.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby his application for amendment of Written Statement was dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for

petitioner/defendant, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice.

2. Broadly speaking, after closure of plaintiff’s evidence (in which as many as six witnesses were examined), at the stage of recording the defendant’s evidence, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the Written Statement in order to incorporate reference to two writ petitions, filed before this Court. The petitioner/defendant in his application took a stand that since the said two writ petitions were filed subsequent to filing of the Written Statement, he

D By ig :N ita E ll E y T S U ig N ne N d AIR G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2aCps9cD e n f. 6 oO iN a 53 r g =b s t i . U9 :4 a i e t 4G tc 6 aR l . : a 0 2 N = I 2 l 2 T R l C f 0I c u 0 8 y I N oO = S 6 m 2 0 s, d H 8fF 5 c i b o be g 4 b . D K 4 = 1 =e 0 n dA 8 2 E H r 1 1 e 2= 3 . L T d 1 Id e G H5 d H 0 d 2 b d 3 H I P 8 , 1 y 4C e A6 7 C 3 8 I3 G 9 0L D : O 5 6 3 , b I4 I A f 7 R s 2 U - 2 0 9 t 9 I : 7 R = 7 2 0 S 7 6 0 H a c T 5 6 D4 4 4 7 2 O - e5 K 7 8 0 6 l1 AF 6 7 h b 8 c e 3 9 T a i ' 2D 0 ,c 8c 6 H f 4 E6 , 5 P 5 L ' a5 f AH c ,f 80 o LI, 07 I u A e 1b =4 e5 Ha 2d fI 6 eG 1f c 5a H4 , 5 70 6 9 9

could not have incorporated those writ petitions in the Written Statement. The learned trial court, by way of the impugned order, elaborately discussed the factual matrix as well as a judicial precedent, flowing from the Supreme Court, and took a view that the amendment sought is hit by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, so the amendment application was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the petitioner/defendant was admittedly not a party to the said two writ petitions and as such, the learned trial court has wrongly overstretched the meaning of the expression ‘due diligence’ used in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is contended that petitioner/defendant cannot be expected to keep checking the institution of all legal proceedings related to the dispute pending trial.

4. To begin with, it would be necessary to take record of the relevant dates, as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner/defendant. The Written Statement was filed by the petitioner/defendant on 04.08.2023; the issues were framed on 01.02.2024; the trial commenced on 09.04.2024; and the amendment application was filed by the petitioner/defendant on 07.07.2025. The writ petitions, sought to be incorporated through amendment in the Written Statement, were filed on 19.12.2023 (prior to framing of issues) and

15.03.2024 (prior to commencement of trial).

5. Of course, going by the dates mentioned in paragraph 4 hereof, nobody can expect the mention of the said writ petitions in the originally D B Si y i g g :N i n ta a E l t l E u y T r S e U i g N N n o e N d t A V I e R rified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2aCps6cD e n f. b oO iN a 53 r g =4 s t i . U9 :4 a i e t 0G tc 6 aR l . : a f 2 N = I 2 l 2 8 T R l C 0I c u 0 0 y I N oO = S 6 m 2 c s, d H 8fF b 5 i b o be g 4 d . D K 4 = 1 =e 0 n 2A 8 2 E H r 1 1 e e= 3 . L T d 1 IdG H5 d H 0 2 b d 3 H I P 8 6 , 1 y 4C e A0 7 C 3 8 I3 G 9 4L D : O 5 6 3 , b I0 I A f 7 R s 1 U - 2 2 9 t9 I : 7 R = 7 c 5 S 7 6 0 4 H aT 3 6 D4 4 8 7 2 O - e5 K 7 7 0 6 l1 AF 6 9 h b 8 c e 3 6 T a i ' 2D 0 ,c 8c 5 H f 4 E6 , f P 5 L ' a5 8 AH c ,f 00 o LI, 17 I u A e eb =4 25 Ha 6d fI f eG 1a c 5, H 4 5 70 6 9 9 filed Written Statement. For, as per the petitioner/defendant, he came to know about those