Karnataka HC Lets Firm Add Director’s Ill-Health Plea To Bid To Set Aside ₹90.85 Lakh Decree, On ₹10,000 Costs

The respondent obtained a decree on 1 September 2017 in O.S. No. 358/2014 directing the petitioner to pay ₹90,85,000, costs and future interest.

The petitioner, which had been represented by counsel but had not contested the suit or led evidence, filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 89/2019 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the decree.

On 13 March 2024, it filed I.A. No. 5 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend that petition by identifying its director and adding averments concerning the company’s authorisation of representatives, health issues and difficulties communicating with its lawyers.

The Trial Court rejected the application on 27 March 2024, finding the amendment unnecessary and belated, and that it would fill a lacuna and prejudice the respondent.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

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

In Haram ani Sahoo v. Lalita Nayak, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2123, the Supreme Court considered the explanation for delay, the amendment’s connection to the existing controversy, and whether prejudice could be addressed through additional pleadings or costs.

Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117, explains that due diligence depends on the facts and circumstances, and that delay may, in an appropriate case, be compensated by costs.

Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 409, confirms that the proviso imposes a mandatory condition on the court’s power to allow a post-commencement amendment.

The High Court considered the amendment’s limited scope and the petitioner’s explanation that changes in company personnel, the director’s ill-health and communication difficulties had affected the conduct of the matter.

Although the Trial Court had found the amendment belated and prejudicial, the High Court concluded that the delay could be addressed by costs and that allowing the amendment would advance substantive justice, particularly given that the miscellaneous petition had remained pending for seven years and proceedings had been stayed during the writ petition.

The Court did not determine the merits of the Order IX Rule 13 petition; it left the respondent free to raise its objections before the Trial Court.

It left the parties’ rights and contentions open before the Trial Court and closed all pending applications.