Karnataka HC Sends Defendants’ Amendment Bid Back, Says Court Must Check If It Supports Extra Evidence in Specific-Performance Appeal

The respondent obtained a decree for specific performance in O.S. No. 476/2013 on 21 July 2018.

The defendants appealed and, in the appeal, sought under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend their written statement by adding further facts to their defence that the agreement concerned a loan transaction, as well as other averments.

They also sought to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

The First Appellate Court rejected the amendment application, citing delay, lack of due diligence and the nature of the proposed amendments, but allowed the applications for additional evidence subject to costs.

The defendants challenged the rejection of the amendment application in this writ petition; the order allowing additional evidence was not challenged.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendments necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, but after commencement of trial its proviso requires the applicant to establish that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier; that requirement is mandatory (Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 49).

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and Order VI Rule 17 CPC impose distinct requirements: permission to adduce additional evidence does not automatically justify amendment of pleadings. Evidence must be supported by an adequate pleaded factual foundation; a court cannot decide a dispute on an unpleaded factual case merely because evidence concerning it is produced (Bachhaj Nahar v. Neelima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491; Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) by LRs v. Abdul Shukkur, 2025 INSC 1027).

In assessing amendment applications, the court must distinguish between amendments that elaborate an existing defence, introduce a new or inconsistent case, or plead material subsequent events, and consider relevance, delay and prejudice.

The First Appellate Court had allowed additional evidence but rejected the amendments without considering whether the documents related to the defence already pleaded or depended on additional material facts absent from the written statement.

That omission mattered because evidence cannot establish an independent factual case without the necessary pleadings.

The High Court did not treat the admission of additional evidence as sufficient ground to allow the amendments wholesale. It held that the advocate’s illness, standing alone, did not establish due diligence, and that the defendants would need to explain what facts were omitted, when they learned of them and why they could not have pleaded them earlier.

At the same time, subsequent events and amendments elaborating an existing defence required separate consideration from amendments introducing a new case.

Because the appellate order did not undertake that claim-by-claim assessment or adequately address prejudice to the plaintiff, remittal—not outright permission to amend—was appropriate.

The order dated 19 February 2024 rejecting the amendment application was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the First Appellate Court to reconsider the proposed amendments in light of the existing pleadings, the additional evidence already permitted, the due-diligence requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and potential prejudice to the plaintiff.

The appellate court was directed to dispose of the application expeditiously and hear the appeal without unnecessary delay.