Amendment seeking to withdraw a clear admission after commencement of trial is impermissible under Order VI Rule 17.

The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit in 2022 for partition and permanent injunction regarding property House No. J-113, Jaipur, belonging to her late father, Harbhajan Singh Chaddha.

The petitioners/defendants filed a written statement admitting the property belonged to the deceased and devolved upon all legal heirs.

After issues were framed on 10.05.2023, the defendants moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 02.02.2024 to amend the written statement.

They sought to plead that the plaintiff had already received her share through a Pune flat and family business settlements, thereby contesting her 1/4th share entitlement.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on 22.03.2024, leading to this writ petition.

1. Whether the proposed amendment to the written statement was permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after the commencement of trial.

2. Whether the proposed amendment amounted to a withdrawal of a judicial admission regarding the plaintiff's rights in the suit property.

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which permits amendments necessary for determining the real controversy but contains a proviso barring amendments after the trial has commenced unless "due diligence" is proved.

It relied on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (2022), which established that amendments should not be allowed if they withdraw a clear admission or cause irreparable prejudice.

The court also noted the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution as per Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. and Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, restricting interference to cases of patent error or jurisdictional overreach.

The Court observed that the trial had commenced as issues were framed on 10.05.2023, invoking the restrictive proviso of Order VI Rule 17.

The petitioners failed to demonstrate "due diligence" or explain why these facts (regarding the Pune flat and business settlement) were not pleaded originally despite being within their knowledge.

Crucially, the Court found that the original written statement admitted the plaintiff was a legal heir with rights in the property.

The proposed amendment sought to introduce vague, inconsistent pleas that effectively withdrew this admission, which is prohibited under the Sanjeev Builders precedent.

The High Court determined the Trial Court's finding—that the application was a dilatory tactic—was not perverse or legally flawed.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Trial Court’s order dated 22.03.2024, finding no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227.