Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are generally disallowed unless the party demonstrates due diligence in raising the matter prior to trial.

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 31.12.2024 in I.A.No.600 of 2023 in O.S.No.112 of 2018 passed by the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (for short, ‘the impugned order’)

2. Heard Mr. Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial court dismissed the I.A. which was filed by petitioner / plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Court to permit the petitioner / plaintiff herein to amend the plaint as regards the schedule of property.

4. Initially, the petitioner / plaintiff filed the above suit under Section 26 Order VII Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 way back in the year 2015 seeking for preliminary decree and for other reliefs.

5. Down the line, the proceedings in the suit have reached at the fag end. In other words, while the suit is under progress, the pleadings were completed, issues were framed, trial had also commenced and the evidence on the side of defendants was closed, and the matter was posted for final arguments. When the arguments on the plaintiff’s side was concluded and arguments on the defendants’ side were also concluded, and when the matter was posted for reply arguments of the plaintiff, the instant I.A., i.e., I.A.No.600 of 2023 in O.S.No.112 of 2018, has been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff seeking for amend of the plaint as regards the schedule of property.

6. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, the Trial Court has rejected the I.A. vide the impugned order. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant Civil Revision Petition.

7. Perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the findings arrived at by the Trial Court, so far as the amendment which is being sought for, pertains to a Development Agreement, bearing Document No.11152/2007, dated 29.08.2007, said to be executed by respondents / defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of respondent / defendant No.5 on 29.08.2007.

8. The suit is one which was filed in the year 2018, and after a lapse of six years and when the suit had progressed and reached its fag end, the instant I.A. has been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff seeking for amendment of the plaint so far as the Development Agreement, bearing Document No.11152/2007, dated 29.08.2007, said to be executed by respondents / defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of respondent / defendant No.5 on 29.08.2007 is concerned.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallavva vs. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (died) by Legal Heirs, [2025 (2) A.L.D. 16 (S.C.)] wherein a learned Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by relying on an earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 wherein certain basic principles were laid down at para No.63 of the said judgment, which the Courts should keep in mind while allowing or rejecting an application for amendment, which for ready reference is reproduced as under :

“63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment :

(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;

(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;

(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigations;

(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and

(6) as a general rule, the Court should declin