Court affirms that due diligence test is not universally applicable, allows amendment to address real controversy and avoid multiple litigations.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, presided over by Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, has addressed the nuances of the "due diligence test" under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) concerning amendments of pleadings after the commencement of a trial. The judgment delivered on December 16, 2025, in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and others versus Bandenawaz and others, has set a precedent for how such amendments should be treated, focusing on the necessity to resolve real questions in controversy and prevent multiplicity of litigation.
The case revolved around a petition challenging a trial court's decision to reject an application for amending the plaint 10 years after the suit was filed and post the commencement of trial. The plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to include a plea that they were dispossessed of the property in question during the pendency of the suit, thus necessitating a prayer for possession.
Justice Hegde's judgment clarifies that while the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 mandates the due diligence test for amendments post-trial commencement, this test is not universally applicable. The court highlighted that the nature of the amendment, rather than the mere passage of time or the commencement of the trial, should guide the decision to allow amendments. The judgment emphasized that amendments necessary to determine the real controversy or avoid multiple lawsuits can be permitted even if due diligence is not demonstrated.
The court's ruling sets a critical distinction in procedural law by stating that the due diligence test should not override the primary purpose of Order VI Rule 17, which is to decide the real questions in controversy and avoid multiple litigations. The court further stated that procedural law should facilitate justice, and amendments should be allowed in cases where they prevent further litigation and resolve all pending issues between the parties.
The judgment also addressed the nature of amendments that can be allowed without the due diligence test, including correcting typographical errors, adding subsequent events that affect the case outcome, and including alternative or additional reliefs that stem from the same fundamental facts as the original claim.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that procedural laws serve the cause of justice, particularly in allowing necessary amendments to pleadings even after trial commencement. This judgment is a reminder that the courts possess the discretion to permit amendments to facilitate a fair trial and comprehensive justice, even when procedural defaults occur.
Bottom Line:
Amendment of pleadings post-commencement of trial under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is permissible even if the due diligence test is not satisfied, provided the amendment is necessary to decide the real questions in controversy and avoid multiplicity of litigation.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17, Section 151 of CPC
Shri Mohammadrafi v. Bandenawaz, (Karnataka)(Dharwad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2842115
