Punjab and Haryana High Court Disallows Amendment of Written Statement After Commencement of Trial

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that an application for the amendment of a written statement cannot be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless the party seeking the amendment demonstrates due diligence. The court set aside the trial court's order that allowed the amendment, noting that it failed to make the necessary finding.

The case, CR 6484 of 2017, involved a revision petition filed by Mr. Jagjit Singh, the petitioner, seeking to set aside an order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura. The order allowed the application of defendants no. 6 and 7 (respondents) seeking to amend their written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The petitioner had filed a suit for separate possession through partition and a declaration that a sale deed executed in favor of defendants no. 6 to 8 (respondents) was illegal and null. The trial had already commenced, with the petitioner concluding his evidence and the defendants presenting their witnesses.

The respondents filed an application seeking to amend their written statement, claiming that their earlier counsel inadvertently failed to elaborate on certain facts and raise legal objections necessary for the just decision of the case. However, the court found that the respondents were aware of these facts at the time of filing the written statement but failed to exercise due diligence.

The court emphasized that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC imposes a condition that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court determines that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. Since the respondents failed to meet this condition, the trial court's order allowing the amendment was deemed erroneous.

Furthermore, the proposed amendments by the respondents were found to be unnecessary for deciding the real issues in the case. The court noted that the respondents sought to introduce new pleas that did not have a substantial bearing on the merits of the matter. Therefore, the court disallowed the amendment application, emphasizing that the power to allow amendments should not be exercised in a casual manner.

The judgment referred to various Supreme Court decisions, including Pandit Malhari Mahale v. Monika Pandit Mahale, Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr., J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, and Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Others, which upheld the requirement of due diligence and limitations on amendments after the commencement of the trial.

This ruling serves as an important reminder that parties must exercise due diligence in raising relevant matters before the commencement of the trial. It clarifies that amendments to pleadings after the trial has begun should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances to ensure fairness and justice in the proceedings.

This decision will have significant implications for future cases, highlighting the importance of timely and diligent pleading by parties and preventing undue delays in the trial process.

Decided on: 05.05.2023

Jagjit Singh vs Jasmer Singh and others