Listing a Case for Evidence Is Not Commencement of Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Insurance Dispute

"The Mere Listing of the Matter for Plaintiff's Evidence Cannot By Itself Be Treated as Commencement of Trial in the Strict Legal Sense", In a significant ruling clarifying the meaning of "commencement of trial" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a Commercial Court order that had rejected an application for amendment of plaint on the ground that the matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence.

A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal held that trial commences only when an affidavit of evidence is actually filed or tendered under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and witnesses are subjected to examination — not merely when a case is listed for evidence on the board. The Court allowed the amendment application filed by Hanumant Sugar Private Limited in an insurance claim dispute involving a loss of approximately Rs. 41.50 crores, holding that the trial court had adopted an unduly technical approach in rejecting a clarificatory amendment that introduced no new cause of action and caused no prejudice to the defendants.

Background of the Case

The petitioner Hanumant Sugar Private Limited, engaged in the production of molasses and manufacture of sugar, had obtained an insurance policy from SBI General Insurance Company Limited for the period February 28, 2019 to February 27, 2020, with a sum assured of Rs. 41,50,00,000. On March 29, 2019, a chemical reaction in a molasses tank caused its bottom to burst, resulting in the outflow of approximately 3,200 tons of molasses and substantial loss to the petitioner's factory premises. The insurer's surveyor attributed the incident to alleged construction defects, and the claim was ultimately rejected on grounds the petitioner characterised as erroneous and in violation of IRDAI (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2017. The petitioner filed Commercial Suit No. 25 of 2023 before the Commercial Court at Bhopal. During preparation of evidence, certain necessary pleadings relating to the disputed insurance policy and insured instrument were found to have been inadvertently omitted from the plaint. An amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed, which the 8th District Judge, Commercial Court, Bhopal rejected on December 12, 2024 on the sole ground that the matter was already fixed for plaintiff's evidence and trial had commenced.

Legal Issues and Court's Observations

What Constitutes "Commencement of Trial" Under the Commercial Courts Act

The central legal question was the precise point at which "trial" commences in a commercial suit for the purpose of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC — which prohibits amendment applications after commencement of trial unless the party demonstrates due diligence in not raising the matter earlier.

The Court examined Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates that the amended provisions of the CPC shall govern commercial disputes and that where any State amendment conflicts with the Commercial Courts Act amendments, the latter prevails. The Court noted that under the Commercial Courts regime, a stricter limitation on amendments applies once trial begins — but that this restriction is triggered only upon actual commencement of trial, not upon any earlier procedural step.

The Court held with clarity that trial in a commercial suit commences when evidence is actually tendered by way of affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC and witnesses are examined — not when issues are framed, not when the case appears on the cause list for evidence, and not when a date for evidence is fixed by the court.

"The stage of trial is generally understood to begin when evidence is actually tendered by way of affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC and witnesses are subjected to examination. Mere listing of the matter for plaintiff's evidence cannot by itself be treated as commencement of trial in the strict legal sense."

The trial court's error was therefore fundamental — it applied the post-trial restriction on amendments to a stage at which no affidavit of evidence had been filed and no witness had been examined or cross-examined. The condition of "due diligence" under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC had simply not been triggered. The Court held that the rejection of the amendment application on this misconceived ground was unsustainable and amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction properly.

Liberal Approach to Amendment — Baldev Singh Principles Reaffirmed

The Court drew extensively on the Supreme Court's comprehensive enunciation of amendment principles in Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh & Anr. (2006) 2 RCR 265, which remains the leading authority on the liberal construction of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Supreme Court in that case had held that courts should be extremely liberal in granting amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side, that wide and unfettered discretion is conferred on courts to allow amendment on such terms as appear just and proper, and that amendments that assist in expeditious disposal of suits should ordinarily be permitted.

Applying these principles, the Madhya Pradesh High Court found that the trial court had departed entirely from this liberal approach and had instead adopted a hyper-technical stance by treating a mere listing date as equivalent to commencement of trial.

"The learned Trial Court adopted an unduly technical approach in rejecting the amendment application and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in its proper perspective."

Nature of the Amendment — Clarificatory, Not a New Cause of Action

The Court independently examined the substance of the proposed amendment and found it to be clarificatory in character. The amendment related to the insurance policy and the insured instrument — the very foundation documents of the suit. It did not seek to introduce a new cause of action, did not seek to alter the fundamental character of the suit, and did not raise any claim barred by limitation. These are the recognised grounds on which courts may refuse amendments even before evidence commences, and none of them was attracted in the present case.

No Prejudice to the Defendants

The Court further noted that the plaintiff had not yet been examined, no affidavit of evidence had been tendered, and no cross-examination had taken place at the time the amendment was sought. In these circumstances, permitting the amendment could cause no serious prejudice to the defendants — they retained the full opportunity to respond to the amended plaint, file additional written statements if needed, and test the plaintiff's evidence in cross-examination. The absence of any demonstrated prejudice further reinforced the case for allowing the amendment.

The ruling provides important guidance for commercial courts across jurisdictions on the proper meaning of "commencement of trial" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Listing a matter for evidence — a routine administrative act — does not foreclose a party's right to seek amendment of pleadings. Trial commences only upon actual tendering of affidavit evidence and examination of witnesses. Commercial courts that reflexively reject amendment applications upon fixing of evidence dates misapply the statutory framework and deprive parties of their legitimate right to correct inadvertent omissions in pleadings without causing prejudice to any opposing party.

Date of Decision: March 13, 2026