A post-trial plaint amendment requires a showing of due diligence.

The plaintiffs, in O.S. No. 74 of 2015, sought declarations concerning certain documents and their title, along with a permanent injunction and consequential reliefs

At the post-trial stage, they applied to amend the plaint to change the stated total extent of Survey No. 177/3 from 7.12 acres to 1.01 acres; their claim remained confined to 43¼ cents

They also sought to reopen their evidence to examine the town surveyor regarding subdivisions and the correct subdivision number

The District Munsif dismissed both applications, finding the proposed extent amendment unsupported by documents and belated, and the town surveyor’s examination unnecessary

The plaintiffs challenged those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the trial court’s refusal to permit the post-trial amendment of the stated extent of the property warranted interference under Article 227

2. Whether the trial court’s refusal to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence to examine the town surveyor warranted such interference

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs amendment of pleadings; where amendment is sought after trial, the plaintiffs must show due diligence

Rules 75 and 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice were relied on in considering the request to summon the town surveyor: the Court stated that relevant records could be placed before the trial court and that a subpoena should not issue mechanically

The Court applied its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, finding no perversity in either challenged order that warranted interference

The requested change to the total extent did not alter the plaintiffs’ claim to 43¼ cents, which they could seek to establish through their existing documents; nevertheless, the amendment was made after trial and the plaintiffs had not shown the required due diligence

As to reopening evidence, records of any subdivisions could be produced and any necessary amendment sought before the trial court; summoning the town surveyor was not required as a matter of course

The High Court therefore found no basis to disturb either order under Article 227

It directed the District Munsif Court to dispose of O.S. No. 74 of 2015 within three months of receiving a copy of the order, clarifying that its observations would not affect the trial court’s decision on the merits

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed