Order VI Rule 17 CPC: Amendment of Plaint Post-Trial Commencement Requires Strict Proof of 'Due Diligence', Vague Averments Insufficient: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-05-25

High Court Sets Aside Plaint Amendment, Stresses on "Due Diligence" Post Trial Commencement

Chandigarh : The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a significant ruling on the amendment of pleadings, has reiterated that an application to amend a plaint after the commencement of trial cannot be allowed unless the party seeking amendment demonstrates "due diligence" as mandated by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). A mere vague assertion of diligence is insufficient, the Court emphasized.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu on January 30, 2018, in the case of Galaxy Logistic Services vs. M/S Trim India Pvt. Ltd. (CR-1498-2015). The Court set aside an order dated March 2, 2015, by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, which had permitted the plaintiff (M/S Trim India Pvt. Ltd.) to amend its plaint in a suit for recovery.

Case Background

M/S Trim India Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff/respondent) had filed a suit for recovery against Galaxy Logistic Services (defendant/petitioner). Issues in the suit were framed on October 27, 2013, marking the commencement of the trial. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application (Annexure P-1) to amend the plaint, seeking to enhance the recovery amount. This application was allowed by the trial court vide an order dated March 2, 2015 (Annexure P-3).

Galaxy Logistic Services challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that the amendment was sought at a belated stage, after the trial had commenced and evidence was being led, primarily to overcome certain admissions made by the plaintiff's witness during cross-examination.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner (Galaxy Logistic Services): Mr. Akshay Bhan, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the plaintiff-respondent had filed the suit for recovery, which was being contested. After the plaintiff's witness, Dinesh Kumar, made certain admissions during cross-examination, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to "wriggle out of them." This application was filed after the plaintiff's evidence was closed (stated as closed on December 3, 2015, per Annexure P-5, though this date is subsequent to the impugned order, indicating the advanced stage of proceedings).

The core contention was that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC bars such amendments after trial commencement unless the party proves that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. The petitioner asserted that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate such due diligence and the trial court erroneously allowed the amendment without adverting to this mandatory provision. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors. (2006) and Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr. (2009).

For the Respondent (M/S Trim India Pvt. Ltd.): Mr. Alok Ghoslia, counsel for the respondent, supported the trial court's order. He submitted that no new case was being set up by the amendment and that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded due diligence, stating they could not seek the amendment earlier. He drew strength from the Supreme Court's decision in Chander Kanta Bansal Vs. Rajinder Singh Anand (2008).

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu observed that the application for amendment was indeed filed after the commencement of trial. The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Interpreting Order VI Rule 17 CPC: The Court cited Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr. , where the Supreme Court held: > "The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier." The object, the Supreme Court noted, is to prevent frivolous applications designed to delay trial.

The High Court also referred to Ajendraprasadji N. Pande , where it was established that the burden is on the party seeking amendment post-trial commencement to show due diligence, and a mere "plea of oversight" is not acceptable.

Assessing "Due Diligence" in the Present Case: The High Court scrutinized the plaintiff's application for amendment (Annexure P-1) and found the averment regarding due diligence to be wholly insufficient. The application merely stated: > "That the plaintiff was always diligent and despite of best efforts, the plaintiff could not seek the amendment of the plaint earlier."

The Court found this statement "vague and bald," failing to explain how the plaintiff was diligent or why the proposed amendments could not have been incorporated when the suit was initially filed or before the trial commenced.

The trial court, in its impugned order, had not recorded any finding that it was satisfied with the plaintiff's claim of due diligence. The High Court noted, "Not only this, even the trial Court while accepting the prayer and permitting the plaintiff to alter the plaint has not adverted to this provision of the Code of Civil Procedure."

Regarding the respondent's reliance on Chander Kanta Bansal , the High Court distinguished it, noting that in that case, the amendment was sought prior to the framing of issues, unlike the current scenario.

Decision

Concluding that the trial court had committed a "serious irregularity and illegality" in exercising its jurisdiction by allowing the amendment without due consideration of the mandatory proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the High Court allowed the revision petition.

The impugned order of the trial court dated March 2, 2015 (Annexure P-3) was set aside, and the plaintiff's application for amendment (Annexure P-1) was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's stance on discouraging belated amendments to pleadings that can derail trial proceedings, unless a strong case for "due diligence" is unequivocally established by the applicant.