Due Diligence Test In Amendments: Karnataka High Court Rules

In a landmark decision clarifying the procedural rigor surrounding the amendment of pleadings, the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad has ruled that the "due diligence" test under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( CPC ), 1908, is not a universal hurdle post-trial. Presided over by Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, the Court emphasized that rigid application of the rule should not defeat the primary goal of resolving the real controversy between parties.

The Backdrop: A Decade-Long Dispute

The proceedings stemmed from a Writ Petition filed by plaintiffs Mohammadrafi and others against respondents Bandenawaz and others. The original suit, initiated in 2015, sought a declaration and injunction regarding the cancellation of a 2009 sale deed. After a decade of litigation and reaching the trial stage, the plaintiffs moved an application (I.A. No.VII) to include a plea of dispossession, which allegedly occurred in 2022, and to add a prayer for possession.

The Trial Court had rejected this application, citing the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the "due diligence" test—a requirement introduced by the 2002 amendment to the CPC , intended to prevent frivolous and dilatory tactics during trial. The plaintiffs approached the High Court to challenge this dismissal.

Arguments Pitched

The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were seeking a tactical advantage, arguing that previous cross-examinations already admitted to dispossession in 2014. They maintained that the post-trial amendment was a belated attempt to shift the narrative and that it failed to demonstrate the compulsory "due diligence" required by law after trial commencement.

Conversely, the plaintiffs argued that the application was well within the limitation period under the Limitation Act, and the amendment was necessary to resolve the total conflict between the parties, avoiding the need for a fresh, separate lawsuit.

The Court’s Reasoning: Navigating Procedural Rigidity

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde noted that while the 2002 amendment aimed to curb unnecessary delays, it was never intended to override the fundamental objective of the CPC : to decide real questions in controversy and prevent a multiplicity of litigation.

The Court identified several instances where the "due diligence" test should not act as a total bar, such as: * Correction of typographical errors or property descriptions. * Inclusion of events occurring post-filing of the suit. * Addition of alternative or ancillary reliefs supported by existing pleadings.

"The due diligence test contemplated in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code cannot have universal application," the Court observed. It further remarked that when procedural rules risk causing injustice, courts possess the inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC to intervene in the interest of justice.

Key Observations

• "The relevance of ‘due diligence test’ is dependent on the nature of the amendment sought and other attending circumstances, and not just dependent on the sole factor as to whether trial has commenced or not."
• "The principles of liberal construction still apply in those situations where the application seeking amendment of pleading is filed to avoid multiplicity of litigations."
• "Procedural law has to be applied to serve the cause of justice, and that applies more rigorously to Order VI Rule 17 given the intent behind the first part of Order VI Rule 17, which still retains the expression 'at any stage of the proceedings'."

Decision and Impact

The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order, allowing the plaintiffs’ amendment upon the payment of ₹7,000 in costs. The Court clarified that this ruling does not decide the merits of the dispossession timeline—whether it occurred in 2014 or 2022—leaving that for the trial on evidence.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder to lower courts that procedural provisions are the handmaids of justice, not its masters. By distinguishing between different types of amendments, the Court has provided a framework that balances the need for timely litigation with the necessity of ensuring that the true, core issues of a case are finally and justly adjudicated.