A plaint cannot be amended after dismissal to cure a defect known before trial.

The appellants, a partnership firm and its Manager, were the plaintiffs in a money-recovery suit arising from an alleged hire-purchase transaction for a motor vehicle.

The plaint stated that the vehicle bore registration number TN-31-K-9533, whereas the hire-purchase agreement recorded the number as TN-31-F-9533.

The suit was dismissed, inter alia, on account of this discrepancy.

The respondent’s reply to the pre-suit notice had specifically identified the discrepancy and asserted that the vehicle purchased was TN-31-F-9533.

During the pendency of the first appeal, the appellants sought amendment of the plaint to correct the registration number.

The Principal District Judge, Salem, rejected the application, but the impugned order subsequently permitted the amendment at the appellate stage.

Whether an amendment to the plaint could be permitted at the appellate stage after the suit had already been dismissed on the very issue sought to be introduced or corrected.

Whether the appellants satisfied the due-diligence requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, so as to justify amendment after commencement of trial.

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which pleadings may generally be amended at any stage to determine the real questions in controversy, subject to the proviso that, after commencement of trial, amendment is permissible only where the party establishes that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

Relying on Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Through LRs v. S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 364, the Court reiterated that pre-trial amendments are considered more liberally, whereas post-commencement amendments are restricted by the due-diligence requirement.

Although an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding, the power to amend pleadings remains governed by Order VI Rule 17 and its proviso.

The Court held that the discrepancy was not a matter which the appellants could not have discovered or raised earlier.

The pre-suit notice itself contained the incorrect registration number, and the respondent’s reply expressly pointed out that the vehicle purchased bore registration number TN-31-F-9533, not TN-31-K-9533.

Consequently, the appellants could have corrected the plaint before commencement of trial as a matter of ordinary diligence.

Their failure was characterized as sheer carelessness, which could not satisfy the proviso to Order VI Rule 17.

Since the required diligence was absent even during trial, the Court found no basis for permitting the amendment after dismissal of the suit, notwithstanding that the appeal constituted a continuation of the original proceeding.

It held that the amendment was barred by the due-diligence requirement in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC because the appellants were aware, or ought to have been aware, of the registration-number discrepancy before and during trial.

The first appeal before the Principal District Judge, Salem, was directed to be considered on its merits.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.