Allahabad HC Upholds Refusal To Let Tenant Add Partition Defence At Final Arguments, Citing Lack Of Due Diligence

The respondent filed an SCC suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages.

The petitioner contested her ownership and landlordship.

After the suit had reached final arguments, he applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add a defence that the property had been partitioned before institution of the suit, causing a division of the tenanted accommodation and rendering the suit, in the absence of another co-owner, not maintainable.

He claimed to have learned of the partition in August 2025.

The trial court rejected the application, and the revisional court affirmed that decision.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 227.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, but its proviso bars allowing an amendment after commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

Vidyabai v. Padmalatha confirms that this proviso is mandatory and requires the court to record the requisite satisfaction.

Under Revajeetu Builders v. Narayanaswamy, relevant considerations include necessity, whether the amendment introduces a fundamentally different or inconsistent case, prejudice and bona fides.

Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh recognises that a defendant may generally introduce an additional or alternative defence, but that approach does not displace the proviso’s due-diligence requirement.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is not appellate; interference is warranted for jurisdictional error or patent error resulting in manifest injustice.

The alleged partition and municipal resolution predated the suit, and the petitioner’s written statement did not raise the partition or its asserted effect on the tenancy.

His assertion that he learned of the matter in August 2025 was unsupported by particulars explaining how he acquired that knowledge then, what steps he had taken earlier, or why the facts could not have been discovered before trial.

Although the proposed defence might be relevant and the amendment concerned a written statement, neither relevance, absence of prejudice nor the more liberal approach to written-statement amendments could substitute for satisfying the mandatory due-diligence requirement.

Given that the application was filed after evidence had concluded and the matter had reached final arguments, the courts below committed no patent illegality or jurisdictional error in refusing it.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the parties’ claims and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously, preferably concluding the suit within three months of production of a certified copy of the order.