Amendment after trial requires due diligence; absent such proof, belated amendments are rightly rejected.

The plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 5 of 2009 claiming right, title, interest and possession in respect of a common passage described in the plaint.

During the proceedings, an Advocate/Survey Commissioner was appointed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) to measure and identify the passage.

The plaintiffs challenged the initial report, following which a Co-ordinate Bench directed a fresh measurement and preparation of a sketch map; however, the Commissioner did not complete the work for several years.

In a subsequent revisional proceeding, the High Court directed appointment of a new Commissioner to measure the passage and submit a report.

The fresh Commissioner measured the suit passage, prepared a sketch map, and submitted the report. The report was accepted by the parties without objection, and the suit was fixed for arguments.

At the argument stage, nearly seventeen years after institution of the suit, the plaintiffs applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by incorporating the actual measurement of the common passage, asserting that the amendment would not alter the nature or character of the suit.

The Trial Court rejected the amendment application with costs of Rs. 1,000/- payable to the defendants.

The plaintiffs challenged that order in the present revision.

Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint at the stage of arguments to incorporate the measurement of the common passage?

Whether the plaintiffs satisfied the requirement of demonstrating due diligence, particularly when the amendment application was filed nearly seventeen years after institution of the suit and after acceptance of the Commissioner’s report?

Whether the proposed amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, despite the measurement already appearing in the plaint, sale deeds and accepted Commissioner’s report?

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which permits amendment of pleadings where necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, subject to the proviso that after commencement of trial the applicant must establish that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

The Court also considered Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC concerning appointment of a Commissioner for local investigation and measurement.

The plaintiffs relied on Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385, Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256, and LIC of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2022) 16 SCC 1, for the principle that amendments necessary for adjudicating the real controversy may generally be allowed.

The defendants relied on Basavaraj v. Indira, (2024) 3 SCC 705, emphasising that an amendment sought after commencement of trial is barred unless the applicant establishes due diligence.

The Court held that the amendment application was highly belated, having been filed nearly seventeen years after institution of the suit and at the stage of arguments.

Although amendments necessary to determine the real controversy may ordinarily be allowed, the plaintiffs failed to explain why the proposed amendment could not have been sought before commencement of trial, thereby failing to satisfy the due-diligence requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Further, the proposed amendment was not necessary for effective adjudication because the accepted Commissioner’s report and sketch map already recorded the actual measurement of the common passage, while the sale deeds annexed to the plaint also specified the relevant measurements.

In these circumstances, the amendment would not supply any material fact necessary for deciding the suit and appeared to be an attempt to introduce information already available on record at a belated stage.

The Trial Court therefore committed no error in rejecting the application.

It held that the plaintiffs had neither established due diligence nor shown that the proposed amendment was necessary for adjudication of the dispute, since the measurement was already reflected in the Commissioner’s report, sketch map and sale deeds.

The revisional application, C.O. 2879 of 2026, was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Trial Court was affirmed.

The connected application, if any, was disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.