After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea

“Due Diligence Is Not a Ritual—Plea of Forgery Raised After Six Years Without Justification Cannot Be Allowed to Derail Trial”, In a judgment reasserting the limits of procedural flexibility and the sanctity of admissions in pleadings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to amend a written statement at the stage of defendant’s evidence by introducing a plea that the lease deed was forged.

Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal, presiding over Civil Revision No. 9266 of 2025 (O&M) titled Vijay Sethi v. Nonihal Singh, held that the proposed amendment was not only belated but also legally impermissible in view of the defendant’s earlier admission of the existence of a lease. The Court observed that “the petitioner had already admitted in the written statement that a written lease deed existed. The proposed amendment, whereby he now seeks to plead that no lease deed was executed and that the document relied upon by the respondent is forged, is clearly a contradictory stand.”

The civil suit in question, instituted in May 2019, sought recovery of ₹90,53,900 towards arrears of rent and electricity dues relating to a commercial tenancy. The defendant initially filed a written statement in September 2019, admitting the existence of a written lease while disputing the monetary claims. However, in September 2024, more than five years into the litigation and after closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant moved an application seeking to amend the written statement to include a new plea that the lease deed was forged, based on a purported forensic report.

“Suit Filed in 2019, Amendment Sought in 2024—Trial Cannot Be Reopened After Plaintiff’s Evidence Has Concluded”

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the amendment was based on “subsequent developments” and that defendants are permitted to take inconsistent pleas. Justice Grewal emphasized that “contradictory pleas”—especially those which repudiate earlier admissions—cannot be permitted at an advanced stage of trial, where it would require reopening the case and re-leading evidence.

The Court observed: “The suit was instituted on 03.05.2019 and the written statement was filed on 30.09.2019. The application for amendment was moved only on 30.09.2024—after the entire evidence of the plaintiff had concluded and when the matter stood fixed for the petitioner’s own evidence.”

Refusing to entertain the amendment under the garb of “justice,” the Court relied on settled precedents. Citing the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncements in Revajeetu Builders v. Narayanaswamy, (2009) 10 SCC 84, and Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 409, the High Court reiterated that “after commencement of trial, strict compliance with the requirement of due diligence is mandatory.”

It was held that the petitioner had failed to show that the facts now sought to be introduced were not within his knowledge earlier, and hence could not satisfy the statutory requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

“Article 227 Is Not an Appellate Forum—Intervention Lies Only for Patent Illegality or Jurisdictional Error”

Dismissing the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court underscored the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction, stating that it does not function as an appellate authority over discretionary procedural orders passed by the Trial Court.

Justice Grewal held: “This Court finds no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Trial Court… No ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out.”

The impugned order dated 17.11.2025, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, which had rejected the amendment application, was thus upheld in full.

This decision serves as a clear reiteration of two fundamental principles of civil procedure:

First, that amendments at the post-trial stage are exceptions, not the rule, and will not be entertained without a clear showing of due diligence and necessity.

Second, that parties cannot resile from their own earlier admissions at the cost of delaying proceedings, particularly when the matter is in the defendant’s evidence stage.

By denying relief, the High Court has protected the integrity of the trial timeline and re-affirmed that “pleadings are not a revolving door” that parties can enter and exit at will.

Date of Decision: 10 December 2025