Court Cannot Refuse Pre-Trial Amendments for Lack of Due Diligence Under Order VI Rule 17 Proviso

The Petitioner filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights

The Opposite Party (wife) filed a written statement denying the marriage and alleging the Petitioner had suppressed a previous marriage

Before issues were framed or the trial commenced, the Petitioner sought to amend his petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to include specific details of the marriage ceremony, the exact location of the temple, and additional prayers for a declaration of his marital status

The Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan, rejected the amendment on 12.11.2025, citing a lack of "due diligence" by the Petitioner

The Petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the "due diligence" requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC applies when the trial has not yet commenced

2. Whether the proposed amendments were necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties

The court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), noting that while the first part is discretionary, the second part is mandatory, requiring courts to allow amendments necessary for determining the real controversy

It relied on Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi (2006) 4 SCC 385, which establishes that the rule of amendment is a rule of justice and equity

It further cited Vidyabai v. Padmalatha (2009) 2 SCC 409 to clarify that the "due diligence" proviso only triggers after the commencement of trial (e.g., filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief)

It also referenced Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (2002) 7 SCC 559 regarding incorporating facts in a pending suit rather than filing a fresh one

The High Court found that the Family Court committed a "patent perversity" by applying the "due diligence" proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC

The Court observed that because the trial had not yet commenced and issues were not framed, the rigorous standards of the proviso did not apply

The Court reasoned that since the wife denied the marriage, the details of the ceremony and location became essential to resolve the "real question in controversy"—the validity of the marriage

The High Court noted that amendments should not be rejected merely because they were prompted by the opponent’s written statement or because an Order VII Rule 11 application was pending

It held that describing the exact temple and including the specific date the wife left the matrimonial home did not change the nature of the suit but supported the existing cause of action

It held that the amendments (except the specifically worded relief No. 1) were necessary for the adjudication of the dispute

The Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to re-file a properly worded prayer for the declaration of the marriage's validity; the interim stay on lower court proceedings was vacated, and the registry was directed to inform the trial court