Post-commencement pleading amendments require proof that due diligence could not raise them earlier.

The respondents sued for declaration, perpetual injunction and rectification of revenue records.

The petitioner filed a written statement and counterclaim. After trial, the suit was decreed, but the trial court did not record findings on the counterclaim.

In the petitioner’s appeal, R.A. No. 58 of 2020, he applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend his written statement to raise a pleading concerning adverse possession. The First Appellate Court rejected the application. The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution

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

The Court cited no precedent

The petitioner sought to add a pleading concerning adverse possession after the suit had been tried and decreed. The Court noted that his supporting affidavit did not state that, despite due diligence, he had been unable to raise the matter in the original pleading.

Because the required explanation was absent, the First Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application; the High Court found no error warranting supervisory interference

The writ petition was dismissed