Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of Amendment in Decades-Old Property Suit

Court rules against amendment in 30-year-old suit citing lack of due diligence and potential prejudice to defendants.

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of an amendment application in a property suit that has been pending for 30 years. The suit, filed by Bhoop Singh Gola against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another respondent, sought a permanent and mandatory injunction to prevent the demolition of a portion of the subject property. The plaintiff had filed an application to amend the plaint at the rebuttal final argument stage, aiming to alter seven paragraphs and the prayer clause by including references to "defendant no.2."

Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the trial court’s order dated 15.10.2025. The High Court found no grounds to issue a notice on the petition, affirming that the amendment application lacked merit.

The judgment emphasized the applicability of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, which necessitates that any amendment sought must be supported by an explanation showing that the facts were not known earlier or could not have been discovered through due diligence. The court found that the petitioner was always aware of the involvement of defendant no.2, who had been a party to the suit from the beginning. Therefore, the amendment was deemed prejudicial to the defense, potentially requiring a reopening of the trial.

The ruling also highlighted the plaintiff's previous unsuccessful attempt to amend the plaint, which was dismissed and not challenged further, making the current application appear frivolous. The court criticized the petitioner’s reasoning for the delay, particularly the claim that the previous counsel failed to raise certain grounds, labeling this practice as unjust and depreciative.

Justice Kathpalia noted the potential injustice of prolonging the suit further, given its 30-year duration, and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks, in addition to costs already imposed by the trial court.

The decision underscores the judiciary's emphasis on the timely administration of justice and the discouragement of frivolous litigation intended to unnecessarily prolong court proceedings.

Bottom Line:

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC at the fag end of a suit pending for 30 years dismissed due to failure to show due diligence and prejudice caused to the defendants.

Statutory provision(s):  

• - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VI Rule 17  
• - Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Bhoop Singh Gola v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810780