An application for amendment of pleadings after the commencement of trial is permissible only if the applicant satisfies the court that, despite exercising due diligence, the matter could not have been raised before the trial commenced, as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

J U D G M E N T

===========

This Original Petition is filed challenging the order dated

18.02.2017 of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner invoking Order IV Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to amend a written statement and counter claim.

2. Ext.P2 application was filed by the petitioner, seeking to amend the written statement and the counter claim, inter alia pointing out that due to an inadvertent omission at the time of filing the written statement, the schedule could not be annexed to the counter claim. It is further contended that the amendment as sought in Ext.P2 is absolutely necessary in the facts and circumstances, so as to put forth the case as set out by the petitioner in his written statement as well as the counter claim.

3. The learned Munsiff vide the order impugned, dismissed the I.A., noting that the same had been filed at the fag end of the trial, and is hence hit by the proviso to Order IV Rule 17 of CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, this O.P(C) is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, all that she sought for in the I.A., was an addition of schedule based on which averments had been made in the written statement and the counter claim, and that Ext.P1 order by which the said I.A. was dismissed by the court below, is not sustainable in law for more than one count. Firstly, it is submitted that the said order does not state any reasoning as to why the petition had been dismissed and had been issued mechanically without proper application of mind. It is a specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below has just chosen to reproduce statutory wordings without considering the averments made in the amendment petition. It is submitted that the learned Judge ought to have necessarily referred to the facts and circumstances of the case, and also to the reasons that led the petitioner to file the amendment petition at a presumably belated point of time.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and the 4^th respondent vehemently object the contentions and submit that there is no cause or reason to interfere with the order impugned. My attention is drawn to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The proviso thereto stipulates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of trial 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.

7. I have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. It is trite and settled that the proviso as laid down in Order IV Rule 17 does not envisage a total prohibition of amendment of pleadings. The provision envisages that at any point of time of the trial of the proceedings, the parties are free to amend the pleadings and such amendments as found necessary by the parties for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, ought to be permitted.

8. At the same time, the proviso incorporated to the said provision mandates that once the trial commences, such amendments sought should be dealt with great circumspection and care. It should not be a situation where after the trial has commenced and the parties had proceeded further with the tendering of evidence, a party is permitted to make amendments to the basic pleadings. It is with such an objective that while incorporating the proviso, it was specified that even in such situations where an amendment is sought after the trial has commenced, before proceeding to allow such amendment application, the