Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court

"The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 specifically speaks of amendment after commencement of trial to be permitted only if the party, despite having exercised due diligence, could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." Supreme Court, in a ruling dated July 28, 2026, held that an application for amendment of a plaint filed after the commencement of trial cannot be allowed unless the applicant demonstrates that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite the exercise of due diligence.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran emphasized that mere carelessness on the part of the plaintiff does not warrant the indulgence of the Court under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

Strict Application Of Order VI Rule 17

The dispute arose from a recovery of money suit filed by a partnership firm, which claimed the defendant had defaulted on a hire purchase agreement for a specific motor vehicle. The suit was dismissed by the trial court primarily because the vehicle registration number mentioned in the plaint differed from the number recorded in the underlying agreement.

Appeal Does Not Dilute Proviso

After the suit was dismissed in 2015, the plaintiff filed an appeal and subsequently moved an interlocutory application seeking to amend the plaint to correct the registration number. The Principal District Judge, Salem, rejected this application, noting that the error was apparent even before the trial commenced. The Supreme Court affirmed this rejection, clarifying that while an appeal is a continuation of original proceedings, the rigorous requirements of Order VI Rule 17 continue to govern amendment applications.

Court Rejects Plea Of Sheer Carelessness

The Supreme Court observed that the defendant had explicitly pointed out the discrepancy in the registration number in their reply notice. Despite this prior knowledge, the plaintiff proceeded to trial with the incorrect details. The bench held that such conduct constitutes sheer carelessness rather than a lack of knowledge that could be excused under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17.

Amendments After Trial Commencement Restricted

The Court underscored the distinction between pre-trial and post-trial amendments, noting that the latter is highly restricted by legislative design. Relying on the precedent in Rajkumar Gurawara (dead) Thr. Lrs. v. S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd., the bench reiterated that post-trial amendments are only permissible if the party proves that the relevant facts were beyond their reach despite due diligence.

"In the present case, it is sheer carelessness, which the plaintiff has to necessarily suffer. Even if an application was filed after commencement of trial, the Court could not have concluded as per the proviso."

Finding no legal justification for the lower appellate court to have permitted the amendment, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order. The Court directed the Principal District Judge, Salem, to proceed with the First Appeal on its merits based on the existing pleadings. The civil appeal was allowed accordingly.

Date of Decision: 28 July 2026