Post-commencement amendments require proof that due diligence could not have raised the matter earlier.

The petitioners, defendants in O.S. No. 615/2017, challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 7 December 2024 rejecting their application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend their written statement and introduce additional defences.

They argued that the proposed amendments were relevant and that the Trial Court had improperly considered their merits.

The respondents opposed the application, submitting that issues had been framed on 2 September 2024, the trial had commenced, and the petitioners had not pleaded or established due diligence.

The High Court considered the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioners satisfied the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC by demonstrating that, despite due diligence, they could not have raised the proposed matters before commencement of trial.

Whether the Trial Court’s rejection of the amendment application warranted interference under Article 227, including in light of its observations on the merits of the proposed amendment.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings where appropriate, but its proviso restricts amendments sought after commencement of trial: the court must be satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before trial commenced.

The burden of establishing that requirement rests on the party seeking the post-commencement amendment, and amendment is not available as a matter of right.

The Court relied on Basavaraj v. Indira and Others, (2024) 3 SCC 705, for these principles.

It also considered the petitioners’ reliance on Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd, (2008) 3 SCC 717, in support of their submission concerning amendment of pleadings.

The issues had been framed on 2 September 2024, so the Court treated the trial as having commenced and the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC as applicable.

The petitioners’ affidavit relied only on inadvertence and the asserted necessity of the amendments; it did not explain why the proposed matters could not have been included in the original written statement despite due diligence, nor was supporting material produced.

The Court therefore held that the statutory threshold was not met.

Even if the amendments might be relevant to adjudication, that consideration could not overcome failure to satisfy the proviso.

The Trial Court’s observations on the merits did not justify supervisory interference in the circumstances.

The writ petition was dismissed, leaving in force the Trial Court’s order rejecting the amendment application.