After Defendant Withdrew Second Written Statement, Karnataka HC Upholds Refusal To Add Its Pleadings Without A Due-Diligence Explanation

In brief

The question

1. Whether the amendment to the written statement could be allowed after commencement of trial without the petitioner establishing the due diligence required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The court held

The High Court held that the petitioner had not established the due diligence required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and found no basis to interfere with the Trial Court’s order.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed.

01Facts

The petitioner, a defendant in a suit for specific performance, filed a written statement on 9 July 2018 and a second written statement on 22 February 2019.

¶ 2

After issues had been framed and the plaintiff’s evidence recorded, he discovered that both statements had been filed and sought to withdraw the second one.

¶ 2

He also applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the first written statement by incorporating pleadings from the second.

¶ 2

The Trial Court permitted withdrawal of the second written statement but rejected the amendment application.

¶ 3, 7

In challenging that rejection under Article 227, the petitioner attributed the duplicate filing to counsel’s error; the High Court noted that the supporting affidavit did not explain the circumstances of the duplicate filing, the withdrawal, or why the amendments could not have been included earlier.

¶ 8–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the amendment to the written statement could be allowed after commencement of trial without the petitioner establishing the due diligence required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

¶ 10, 13–15

ii.2. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to allow the amendment disclosed an error or infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 16

03Law Applied

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings where necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, but its proviso restricts amendments after commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier.

¶ 10, 12–13

The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that due diligence; an amendment is not available as of right.

¶ 14–15

In Basavaraj v. Indira and others, (2024) 3 SCC 705, the Supreme Court reiterated this requirement for amendments sought after trial has commenced.

¶ 14

The High Court considered whether supervisory interference under Article 227 was warranted.

¶ 16

04Reasoning

The petitioner sought to explain the proposed amendment by saying that the second written statement had been filed inadvertently by another counsel and that its withdrawal made amendment of the first statement necessary.

¶ 8–10

However, those circumstances were not pleaded in the affidavit supporting the amendment application.

¶ 8–10

The affidavit also failed to explain why the proposed matters could not, despite due diligence, have been included in the first written statement before trial commenced.

¶ 15

The alleged mistake of counsel, without the necessary pleaded circumstances and due-diligence explanation, did not satisfy the statutory proviso.

¶ 11

The Trial Court’s refusal therefore disclosed no error or infirmity calling for Article 227 intervention.

¶ 16

05Holding

The High Court held that the petitioner had not established the due diligence required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and found no basis to interfere with the Trial Court’s order.

¶ 15–17

The writ petition was dismissed.

¶ 17

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF