1. Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement in a recovery suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J
M/S AEROCOMFORT ANUSHKA JV – Appellant
Versus
M/S KRYPTON HEIGHT BUILDERS & INFRASTRUCTURE – Respondent
CS(COMM)-1200/2016
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Madhu Sudan, Vikhyat Oberoi, Ankit Kakkar, Vedantika Shreya Mehra, Ravi Sharma, Fazal Haroon
For the Respondents: Ankur Mahindro, Alok Tripathi, Mohit Dagar, Amitosh, Creesha Shastri
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Madhu Sudan, Vikhyat Oberoi, Ankit Kakkar, Vedantika Shreya Mehra, Ravi Sharma, Fazal Haroon
For the Respondents: Ankur Mahindro, Alok Tripathi, Mohit Dagar, Amitosh, Creesha Shastri
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally at an early stage to determine the real controversy. However, in commercial suits, documents not disclosed with the written statement must be introduced via a separate application under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC, not through an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Order XI Rule 1 Sub-Rule 7 & 10 - Disclosure and production of documents in commercial suits - Application for amendment of written statement to introduce facts regarding a sub-contract, a Memorandum of Understanding, and a separate recovery suit filed by the defendants - Liberal approach to be adopted for amendments at an early stage to determine the real controversy, provided it does not cause injustice to the other side or change the nature of the suit (Paras 12, 17).
(B) Commercial Suits - Production of documents - Order XI Rule 1 Sub-Rule 10 - Defendant cannot produce documents through an application under Order VI Rule 17 - Separate application seeking leave of court is required by establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the written statement (Para 19).
Facts of the case:
In a suit for recovery of money, the defendants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the written statement to insert preliminary submissions regarding a sub-contract, a Memorandum of Understanding, and a separate recovery suit filed by the defendants against the plaintiff. The plaintiff opposed the application, contending that the facts were already within the defendants' knowledge and that a similar application in another suit had been rejected by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the suit was at an initial stage as issues had not yet been framed. The proposed amendment sought to introduce the existence of a separate recovery suit and related correspondences, which the court deemed necessary for the interest of justice and for the effective adjudication of the dispute.
Issues: Whether the defendants should be permitted to amend the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 to include omitted facts and whether the accompanying documents can be taken on record through the same application in a commercial suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally, especially at an early stage, to determine the real questions in controversy, provided the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice or introduce a time-barred claim. However, in commercial suits, the production of documents not disclosed with the written statement is specifically governed by Order XI Rule 1 Sub-Rule 10. This requires a separate application for leave of court based on reasonable cause for non-disclosure and cannot be achieved via an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17.
Result: Amendment to the written statement is permitted. However, the documents filed by the Defendants are not taken on record.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Defendant seeks to introduce omitted facts; Plaintiff contends amendment alters suit nature and lacks due diligence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Court observes amendment sought at early stage, no time-bar; liberal approach applies; documents need separate application. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed before trial unless time-barred or mala fide; documents require separate application under Order XI Rule 10. (Para 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
5. Amendment to written statement permitted; documents not taken on record; application disposed of; suit listed for further proceedings. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. What is the standard for allowing amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC?
Courts should adopt a liberal approach, especially before trial, unless the amendment introduces a time-barred claim, changes suit nature, or is mala fide. (Para 12 , 14 , 17 )
7. When must a separate application be filed for introducing documents in a commercial suit?
Under Order XI Rule 10 CPC, leave of court is required to rely on documents not disclosed with the written statement. (Para 18 , 19 )
8. Can amendment of pleadings be allowed after trial has commenced?
Yes, only if the court finds that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before trial. (Para 12 )
9. What factors do courts consider while deciding amendment applications before trial?
Whether the amendment is necessary to determine real controversy, does not cause prejudice, and is not time-barred. (Para 12 , 17 )
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23rd JANUARY, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
+ I.A. 3812/2025 IN CS(COMM) 1200/2016 M/S AEROCOMFORT ANUSHKA JV .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Madhu Sudan, Mr. Vikhyat Oberoi, Mr. Ankit Kakkar, Ms. Vedantika Shreya Mehra, Mr. Ravi Sharma and Mr. Fazal Haroon, Advs.
versus M/S KRYPTON HEIGHT BUILDERS & INFRASTRUCTURE .....Defendant Through: Mr. Ankur Mahindro, Mr. Alok Tripathi, Mr. Mohit Dagar, Mr. Amitosh and Ms. Creesha Shastri, Advs. for D-1 and 2 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
I.A. 3812/2025
1. This is an application on behalf of Defendants No.1 and 2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of written statement.
2. The instant suit is one for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,08,74,475/- along with pendente lite and future interest.
3. Pleadings are complete. The material on record indicates that the Defendant has filed a cross-suit being CS(COMM) 97/2017 before this Court against the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,17,10,185/- along with interest. The said suit of the Defendant is premised on the dishounoured cheques for the sum of Rs. 3,17,10,185/-. In the said suit, it is the case of the Defendant that it is the Plaintiff who owes money to the Defendant and that the Defendant does not owe any amount to the Plaintiff.
4. To establish facts, the Defendant had filed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.02.2012 entered into by the parties. The Defendant also places reliance on the Letters dated 13.04.2023, 23.12.2023 and
05.02.2014 issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
5. Realising his mistake that the said facts do not form a part of the written statement in the present suit, Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed this application for amendment of the written statement to place on record the abovementioned facts which have been omitted to be mentioned in the written statement. The Defendants, therefore, seeks to insert these facts in the written statement.
6. The Paragraphs which are sought to be inserted in the written statement have been stated in Paragraph 14 of the present application for amendment of the written statement. Paragraph 14 of the application is reproduced as under:-
―14. It is submitted that the Defendant wish to amend the Written Statement by inserting Preliminary Submission after Para No. 11 in the Written Statement:
“PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS
12. That during the month December 2009, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract by Northern Railways under Tender no. 17-Elect/DyCEE/C/T/34 (Two packet system) for design, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of app. 1300 TR capacity air cooled screw chiller A.C Plant and 250 TR VRF/VRV type air conditioning system complete with associated works in Central Hospital building of Northern Railways at Chelmsford Road, New Delhi (―Tender‖).
13. The Defendant was approached by the Plaintiff for supplies, execution and supervision of the entire work awarded by the Railways to the Plaintiff.
14. That upon further discussions and negotiations, the Plaintiff sub-contracted certain works of material supply, execution and consultancy works to the Defendant. It was agreed between the parties that the Plaintiff shall pay the amount against supplies undertaken by the Defendant. Similarly, for the works performed towards erection of the works, the Defendant was to be paid in accordance with the works performed by the Defendant. The payment and works were to be pre-decided between the parties before performance of the same by the Defendant. Further, the Defendant was also to be paid towards consultancy & supervision charges at the rate of ten percent of the total Tendered amount.
15. The Defendant for all practical purposes was to supervise the whole of the work that was awarded to the Plaintiff under the said tender/work order/contract by the Northern Railways. Not only the Defendant was supervising the whole of the work that was awarded to the Plaintiff, the Defendant was also d
