Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Rejection Of Brothers’ Bid To Add Pre-Suit Facts To Father’s Property Suit After Testifying

The petitioners, plaintiffs in a civil suit, claimed joint title to property allegedly purchased in 1992 by their late father in the name of respondent No. 1, and sought confirmation of possession over their respective shares and injunctive relief.

Respondent No. 1 later sold the property to respondent No. 2.

After issues were framed and the plaintiffs had been examined, they applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint.

The trial court rejected the applications.

Although the writ petition challenged orders dated 19 August 2025 and 2 July 2026, counsel confined submissions to the latter order, concerning rejection of the amendment applications.

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

In Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1865, the Supreme Court held that framing of issues and filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief mark commencement of trial, and that the due-diligence requirement is a jurisdictional precondition to allowing a post-commencement amendment.

Under Article 227, the High Court considered whether the trial court’s order disclosed a jurisdictional error.

The trial had commenced: issues had been framed, and the plaintiffs had already been examined, with their remaining witnesses still to be heard.

The proposed amendments concerned facts existing before the suit was filed, rather than subsequent events, and the plaintiffs sought amendment only after giving evidence.

Applying the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 and Vidyabai, the Court found no basis to conclude that the plaintiffs, despite due diligence, could not have raised those matters before trial commenced.

The trial court therefore committed no jurisdictional error in rejecting the applications.

The writ petition was dismissed.