Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court

"Filing of the amendment application by the petitioner at the stage when the case was fixed for his evidence shows that the petitioner was not due diligent as the amendments sought could have been raised prior to the commencement of the trial," Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an amendment to a written statement cannot be permitted after the commencement of trial if the facts were already within the knowledge of the party at the time of filing the original pleadings.

A single-judge bench of Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) mandates a showing of due diligence, and delayed disclosure of known facts does not justify altering the nature of the defense at a late stage.

The court was dealing with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a trial court's dismissal of an amendment application. The bench noted that the petitioner sought to introduce an entirely new and inconsistent plea regarding the ownership of the suit property several years after the trial had begun and the plaintiff’s evidence had concluded.

The respondent, Smt. Hazra, instituted a suit in 2017 for possession, recovery of rent, and damages against the petitioner, Mohd. Asif, regarding a ground-floor shop in Sunder Nagri, Delhi. In his original written statement, the petitioner denied the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting that the property was constructed with his own funds and was situated on land acquired by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). In 2022, after the respondent’s evidence was concluded, the petitioner moved an application to amend his defense to claim he had purchased the property from a third party in 1985.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner could be permitted to amend his written statement to introduce a plea of ownership after the commencement of trial under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The court was also called upon to determine if the petitioner had demonstrated the requisite "due diligence" to justify the four-year delay in seeking the amendment.

The Mandatory Requirement Of Due Diligence Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

The court highlighted the restrictive nature of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which governs amendments after the commencement of trial. The bench observed that the law prohibits such amendments unless the court is satisfied that the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite exercising due diligence.

Court Explains The Scope Of Post-Trial Amendments

The bench emphasized that the commencement of trial creates a higher threshold for parties seeking to alter their pleadings. In the present case, the trial had reached the stage of the defendant's evidence when the application was filed. The court noted that "no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

"The petitioner was not due diligent as the amendments sought could have been raised prior to the commencement of the trial."

Introduction Of Inconsistent Pleas At A Late Stage Causes Prejudice

The court found that the proposed amendment was not a mere clarification but a fundamental shift in the defense. While the petitioner initially claimed the property was DDA-acquired land, he later sought to claim title through a private purchase from one Noor Biwi in 1985.

Inconsistent Defense To Cause Prejudice To Plaintiff

The bench observed that this new plea was "totally inconsistent to the plea taken earlier in the written statement." It further noted that allowing such a shift in the defense after the plaintiff had already led evidence would cause irreparable prejudice to the respondent. The court reiterated that while inconsistent pleas are sometimes permissible in a written statement, they cannot be introduced through an amendment that surprises the opposite party after the trial is well underway.

Prior Knowledge And Delay Negates The Plea Of Oversight

A crucial factor in the court's decision was the petitioner’s prior knowledge of the documents he sought to rely upon. The court noted that the petitioner had previously moved an application under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC in 2018 to bring the 1985 purchase documents on record, which was dismissed. Despite this, the petitioner waited another four years to file the amendment application.

Oversight Not A Ground For Amendment At Fag End Of Trial

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Basavaraj v. Indira & Ors. (2024), the bench noted that a mere plea of "oversight" or personal reasons, such as a father's health, cannot be accepted as a ground to allow amendments at the fag end of trial. The court held that since the facts were admittedly in the knowledge of the petitioner since the inception of the suit, the failure to include them in the original written statement was fatal to the application.

"The facts which the petitioner now wants to bring on record by way of amendment were well within his knowledge at the time of the filing of the written statement."

The High Court concluded that there was no infirmity or illegality in the trial court’s order dismissing the amendment application. It held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the "due diligence" test and that the application was an attempt to delay the adjudication of the suit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the trial court's decision was upheld.

Date of Decision: 28 April 2026