After trial commences, claimed ignorance of a registered sale deed does not establish due diligence for amendment.

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 271/2022 seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 31 December 2019.

Defendant No. 2, Siddamma, filed her written statement on 8 November 2023.

After the plaintiff had adduced evidence and the suit was posted for Defendant No. 2’s evidence, she applied under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to amend her written statement.

The proposed amendment referred, among other matters, to a 1 June 2012 registered sale deed by which Defendant No. 1 allegedly purchased the property from Verupakshappa, with the petitioner’s husband as a consenting party.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application to amend the written statement after the trial had commenced, on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

2. Whether the trial court’s order disclosed an error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings, but its proviso restricts amendment applications made after commencement of trial: the court must be satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before trial commenced.

The Court considered *Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh*, (2006) 6 SCC 498, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision arose in a case where trial had not commenced and therefore did not govern the present circumstances.

It also referred to the parameters and guidelines for amendment of pleadings laid down in *Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited*, AIR 2022 SC 4256.

In exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the Court considered whether the trial court’s order contained an error or perversity warranting interference.

The application was filed after the plaintiff had adduced evidence and the matter was set down for Defendant No. 2’s evidence, so the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC applied.

The petitioner relied on a registered sale deed and asserted that she had only later learned of the transaction.

The Court held that this explanation did not establish due diligence, particularly because the proposed amendment concerned a registered deed and the petitioner’s husband was said to have been a consenting party to it.

*Baldev Singh* did not assist the petitioner because trial had not commenced in that case.

Finding no error or perversity in the trial court’s assessment, the Court declined to interfere under Article 227.

Finding no basis for supervisory interference, it dismissed the writ petition and left the trial court’s rejection of the amendment application undisturbed.