Partition-Suit Defendants’ Amendment Bid Fails After Trial Began Without a Due-Diligence Explanation: Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection

The petitioners challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 2 September 2026 rejecting their application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend their written statement in a partition suit.

The written statement had been filed on 28 October 2017, issues had been framed, and the suit had reached the cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses.

The proposed amendment relied on a deed of confirmation dated 15 September 2020, but the supporting affidavit did not explain why the amendment could not have been sought before trial commenced.

The petitioners argued that the amendment was necessary because the parties had not complied with the deed’s terms.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendments to pleadings where they are relevant to adjudication, but its proviso bars an amendment after commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier.

In Basavaraj v. Indira & Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 705, the Supreme Court affirmed that the party seeking a post-commencement amendment bears the burden of establishing this due-diligence requirement.

The amendment application was made after the suit had progressed to cross-examination, bringing it within the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Although the proposed amendment relied on a deed dated 15 September 2020, the supporting affidavit did not explain what due diligence the petitioners had exercised or why they could not have sought the amendment earlier.

The petitioners therefore failed to discharge the burden required by the proviso, and the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application.

The writ petition was dismissed.