Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Start of Evidence/Trial Commencement - Recording of evidence begins only after the case is listed for trial and is formally fixed for evidence, not merely after issues are settled or amendments are filed. Until evidence is actually recorded, the proceedings are considered to be at the initial or commencement stage of trial ["D. Thangarasu vs Senthil Educational Trust - Madras"].
Effect of Pending Amendments During Trial - Courts generally recognize that amendments can be permitted after trial has commenced, provided due diligence is exercised. The mere filing of an amendment application after evidence has started does not automatically bar it; the key consideration is whether the party acted with due diligence ["Gul Hasan Miyan VS Aas Mohammad - Patna"], ["VIPIN VINCENT vs MANOJ THOMAS - Kerala"].
Legal Principles on Amendments Post-Trial Start - Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendments are permissible even after trial begins, but courts must consider whether due diligence was exercised in filing the amendment. If an amendment would alter the nature of the suit significantly or cause prejudice, it may be rejected, especially if filed without due diligence ["VIPIN VINCENT vs MANOJ THOMAS - Kerala"], ["A.Suganya vs DR.V.A.Anand - Madras"].
Pending Court Proceedings and Dismissal of Amendments - When an amendment petition is filed at a stage where evidence has already been led or the trial is ongoing, courts may dismiss it if they find it was filed without due diligence or if it would change the fundamental character of the suit. However, courts have also allowed amendments during trial if the party acted diligently and the amendment was necessary for justice ["D. Thangarasu vs Senthil Educational Trust - Madras"], ["KRISHAN CHAND vs JASWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Main Insight - The initiation of evidence or recording of evidence is generally regarded as the start of trial proceedings. The pendency of an OP on the dismissal of an amendment petition does not necessarily mean the trial has not started; rather, the start is marked by the commencement of evidence recording, unless the court explicitly states otherwise ["D. Thangarasu vs Senthil Educational Trust - Madras"], ["Gul Hasan Miyan VS Aas Mohammad - Patna"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The critical factor is whether the court considers the evidence recording as the commencement of trial. Based on the provided sources, the start of evidence recording signifies the start of trial, not merely the filing or pendency of an amendment petition. Therefore, even if an OP regarding the amendment is pending, evidence being recorded indicates that the trial has begun. The pendency of such petitions does not automatically amount to the trial not having started; it depends on whether evidence has been taken or proceedings are ongoing ["D. Thangarasu vs Senthil Educational Trust - Madras"], ["Gul Hasan Miyan VS Aas Mohammad - Patna"].
In civil litigation, timing is everything—especially when it comes to amending pleadings. Imagine this scenario: your amendment petition has been dismissed by the trial court, and an original petition (OP) challenging that dismissal is still pending before the High Court. Meanwhile, evidence recording in the trial has begun. Does this mean the trial has commenced for the purposes of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), barring further amendments? This is a common dilemma for litigants and lawyers alike.
The question at hand is: While OP on dismissal of the amendment petition is pending before high court, evidence in the trial started whether this amounts to the start of trial? Let's dive into the legal nuances, drawing from Supreme Court and High Court precedents to clarify this.
Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendments to pleadings. It allows courts to permit amendments at any stage if necessary for determining the real issues in controversy. However, a crucial proviso—introduced by the 2002 amendment—restricts this after the trial has commenced, unless the party shows that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L. Rs. VS M/s S. K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 4 Supreme 435
The proviso states: amendments are not allowed after trial commencement unless due diligence is proven. But what exactly triggers commencement of trial? This is where judicial interpretations become pivotal.
Courts have consistently held that trial does not begin merely with the recording of evidence or pendency of applications. Instead, it starts when issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence.
In Kailash v. Nanhku, the Supreme Court clarified: In a civil suit, the trial begins when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence. Regu Mahesh @ Regu Maheswar Rao VS Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev - 2003 7 Supreme 657
Similarly, in Baldev Singh, the Apex Court emphasized that commencement is in a limited sense—the stage post-issue framing when evidence recording is scheduled, not when evidence is actually taken or an amendment application is pending. Ajendraprasadji N. Pande VS Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. - 2006 0 Supreme(SC) 1272
This definition is echoed across judgments: the trial commences upon settlement of issues and listing for evidence, irrespective of ongoing procedural skirmishes like amendment petitions. Indira Devi VS Hira Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(HP) 348
Mere evidence recording without prior issue settlement doesn't retroactively deem the trial started earlier.
A frequent misconception is that a pending amendment application—or an appeal against its dismissal—pauses or delays trial commencement. Not so.
In a pertinent ruling, the court observed that unless issues are settled and the case fixed for evidence, the proviso's restriction doesn't apply—even if evidence is underway or an OP on amendment dismissal pends in the High Court. Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L. Rs. VS M/s S. K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 4 Supreme 435
The pendency of such proceedings doesn't equate to trial start. The benchmark remains: has the case been set down for evidence after issues? If not, amendments may still be viable. Conversely, if issues are framed and evidence scheduled, trial has begun, pending matters notwithstanding. Ajendraprasadji N. Pande VS Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. - 2006 0 Supreme(SC) 1272
What if evidence starts while the amendment OP is pending? Courts look beyond surface-level activity:
The Supreme Court stresses: trial begins when scheduled for evidence, not merely when evidence is being recorded or when an application for amendment is pending. Ajendraprasadji N. Pande VS Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. - 2006 0 Supreme(SC) 1272
Even post-commencement, amendments aren't absolutely barred:- Prove due diligence—that the point couldn't have been raised earlier. Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L. Rs. VS M/s S. K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 4 Supreme 435- Courts liberally allow if justice demands, especially with new evidence. Baijat Mallick VS Entaj Mallick - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 1264
In one case, after High Court remand for fresh adjudication with additional evidence, the trial court was directed to permit written statement amendments, as remand implied a fresh start. Baijat Mallick VS Entaj Mallick - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 1264 The court noted: amendments are essential for effective adjudication and should be allowed liberally, especially when new evidence is introduced.
However, vague or unsubstantiated amendment petitions post-trial may be rejected. Smt. K. Jyothi vs Shri J. Ram Reddy - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 53017
Related precedents reinforce flexibility:
These cases highlight courts' focus on substantive justice over procedural rigidity.
To navigate this:- Check Proceedings Stage: Verify if issues are settled and evidence scheduled—core to trial start. Indira Devi VS Hira Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(HP) 348- File Timely: Seek amendments pre-issue framing to avoid proviso hurdles.- Invoke Exception: Post-commencement, document due diligence rigorously.- Monitor High Court OP: Pendency alone doesn't protect; act on trial milestones.
Courts urge analyzing the actual stage, not superficial pendency. Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L. Rs. VS M/s S. K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 4 Supreme 435
In summary, evidence starting while an OP on amendment dismissal pends in High Court does not inherently mean trial commencement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The decisive moment is issue settlement and evidence scheduling. Indira Devi VS Hira Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(HP) 348 This balanced approach ensures justice without endless delays.
This article provides general insights based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
#CPCLaw, #CivilTrial, #AmendmentPetition
It is a matter of common knowledge, the recording of evidence will start only after the case is listed for trial in a special list. ... Once recording of evidence has started, the proceedings in the suit become post- trial proceedings. Till the recording of evidence starts, the court will be in the process of fixing the date for recording of evidence and therefore, the trial remains in the commencement stage. ... I....
The learned trial court has wrongly observed that the amendment could change the nature of suit and there has been much delay in filing the petition for amendment. ... It could not be said that allowing the amendment at this stage would cause injustice to the other side since it is still at the stage of start of plaintiff’s evidence. 16. ... In the light of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial ....
Going by Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, there is no prohibition against amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. The provision only says that while granting an amendment after the trial has started, the court should consider whether due diligence had been exercised. ... Instead, the order proceeds on the basis that the amendment has been sought after the trial has started and hence it could not be entertained. ......
Dash urged that once the High Court had remanded the suit for a fresh adjudication by the learned trial judge, upon allowing the petitioner to adduce additional evidence on the basis of the documents produced before the High Court, and also to advance arguments on the same, the learned Court should not ... Thus, this was an open remand to be decided by the trial court from the very beginning upon allowing parties to start#....
When the petition is filed for amendment of written statement, the Court has to consider whether the amendment is permissible or not under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, but cannot go beyond the scope of the petition and cannot direct the parties to mark the certified copy of the Will as secondary evidence ... After the trial was commenced, an amendment petition could not be allowed on the basis of vague, unsubstantiat....
In my view, where an order satisfies the definition of decree as given in Section 2(2) CPC, whether it is passed by executing court or by a trial court, an appeal would lie as held by Allahabad High Court. ... The order passed by the trial executing court was contrary to the settled legal position that a judgment of the lower court merges into the judgment of the appellate court and the period of limitation for exe....
In my view, where an order satisfies the definition of decree as given in Section 2(2) CPC, whether it is passed by executing court or by a trial court, an appeal would lie as held by Allahabad High Court. ... High Court committed a manifest error in taking a view that a fresh execution petition should have been filed after dismissal of the appeal. ... The present petition deserves #HL_STA....
Though the I.A orders were assailed under two different revision petitions, but as a lead, the Civil Revision Petition No.264 of 2018 was filed being aggrieved by the dismissal of the amendment application vide I.A.No.218 of 2017. ... This Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No.26472 of 2005 summarily and directed the trial Court to proceed with the matter preferably on day- to-day basis. ... So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, ....
Though the I.A orders were assailed under two different revision petitions, but as a lead, the Civil Revision Petition No.264 of 2018 was filed being aggrieved by the dismissal of the amendment application vide I.A.No.218 of 2017. ... This Court dismissed Special Leave Petition No.26472 of 2005 summarily and directed the trial Court to proceed with the matter preferably on day- to-day basis. ... So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, ....
the appeal and restored the dismissal order of the trial Court. ... The learned Judge of this Court by observing that plea sought to be raised for amendment is totally inconsistent with the original plea, dismissed the revision petition and thereby confirming the dismissal of the amendment petition by the trial Court. ... 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, by alleging that it was a type mistake, th....
The legality and the correctness of this order has not been challenged by the applicants in this petition. However, as it is mentioned in the petition that the entire proceedings pending before the trial Court be quashed, therefore, the procedure adopted by the trial Court is considered.
It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in Sreekumar Mukherjee Vs. Zainel Abedin & Ors. (1999) SCC 558while considering Section 86(4) and 97 of the People Act has observed as under: 11. A plain reading of subsection (4) of Section 86 shows that the trial of a petition as contemplated in the said subsection would start only from the date fixed for the respondents to appear before the High Court. The object of this provision seems to be that on the date on which the original respondents to the election petition appear before the High Court, they would be in a position to a....
1. Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner is pending trial before the Trial Court.
JUDGMENT (ORAL) A.K. Pathak, J.—Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner is pending trial before the Trial Court.
In the said application, petitioner/wife has alleged that her husband is a man of means. 2. Respondent/husband has filed a divorce petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act, against petitioner/wife seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The said petition is pending adjudication before the learned trial court. During the pendency of the said petition, petitioner/wife had moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of maintenance for herself and her two children, namely, Master Nikhil Gar....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
