Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of Plea for Amendment in Written Statement Post Trial Commencement

Court reaffirms strict adherence to 'due diligence' requirement under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss an application for amendment of the Written Statement filed by the petitioner, Om Prakash, after the commencement of the trial. The decision, delivered by Justice Girish Kathpalia, emphasized the necessity of demonstrating 'due diligence' as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), when seeking amendments after trial commencement.

The petitioner, Om Prakash, sought to amend his Written Statement to incorporate references to two writ petitions filed before the commencement of the trial. However, the trial court had dismissed the application, a decision now supported by the High Court. The court noted that the petitioner failed to establish that despite exercising due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before the trial began.

Justice Kathpalia, in his oral judgment, underscored the importance of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which limits amendments of pleadings once the trial has started, unless the party can convincingly demonstrate that the matter could not have been addressed earlier despite due diligence. The court highlighted that the petitioner did not provide adequate details on when and how he became aware of the writ petitions, which were filed before the trial commenced.

The High Court's decision drew on precedents such as the recent ruling in "Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s G S Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd." which reiterated that once a trial has commenced, the focus shifts from mere delay to the necessity of due diligence in allowing amendments.

The judgment also pointed out potential prejudice to the respondent, Brahm Singh, if the amendment were allowed, as it would deprive him of the opportunity to counter the new pleadings, leading to unnecessary delays in the trial.

In concluding, Justice Kathpalia found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the petition along with pending applications, upholding the trial court's order.

Bottom Line:

Amendment of Written Statement after commencement of trial - Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates that amendments after trial commencement are permissible only if it is shown that despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

Statutory provision(s): Order VI Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Om Prakash v. Brahm Singh, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821474