Oversight does not constitute due diligence for amending pleadings after the commencement of trial.

The Petitioner (Defendant No. 1 in the original suit) filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated December 16, 2025, passed by the Trial Court in a recovery suit.

After the Respondent/Plaintiff served the Petitioner on December 22, 2024, the written statement was filed in February 2025, and issues were framed on August 8, 2025.

At the stage of evidence, the Petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking to amend the written statement to include details regarding special discounts and visibility fees, claiming these were inadvertently omitted due to the complexity of the commercial transactions.

The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding it was filed belatedly to cause delay.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement filed after the commencement of the trial.

2. Whether the Petitioner satisfied the "due diligence" requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates that while courts may allow amendments at any stage, no such application shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court concludes that the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite "due diligence".

The Supreme Court precedent in Basavaraj vs Indira Ors (2024) 3 SCC 705, which established that "oversight" is an insufficient ground to allow amendments at the fag end of a trial when facts were already within the party's knowledge.

The Court observed that the trial had already commenced as issues had been framed and the matter was at the stage of evidence when the amendment was sought.

The Court noted that the facts regarding special discounts and visibility fees were well within the Petitioner's knowledge at the time the original written statement was filed.

It rejected the Petitioner’s argument that the omission was due to the "complexity of commercial transactions," characterizing the application as vaguely drafted and intended to create ambiguity.

Consequently, the Court found that the Petitioner failed to meet the statutory threshold of "due diligence" required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, as no cogent reasons were provided for the delay.

The High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Trial Court's order and upheld the dismissal of the amendment application. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.