Post-trial amendment of pleadings requires proof of due diligence under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The petitioners (defendants in the original suit) challenged a trial court order dated February 2, 2026, which dismissed their application (I.A. No. 1/2026) for amendment of the Written Statement (W.S.).

The trial had already commenced and reached the stage of defendants' evidence.

The petitioners sought to incorporate a new paragraph (9A) into their W.S., arguing that certain facts were disclosed during cross-examination that necessitated the amendment.

The petitioners invoked Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to incorporate these changes.

1. Whether an amendment to the Written Statement can be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC after the commencement of trial without establishing "due diligence".

2. Whether facts disclosed during the cross-examination of witnesses constitute a sufficient ground for amending pleadings at a late stage of the proceedings.

The Court primarily applied Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which governs the amendment of pleadings.

The rule allows amendments at any stage for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy, provided that no application is allowed after the trial has commenced unless the party shows that, despite "due diligence," they could not have raised the matter earlier.

The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's principles in Abdul Rehman & Anr. v. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. (2012), which state that while courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to minimize litigation, the discretion post-trial commencement is curtailed by the mandatory "due diligence" proviso.

The Court found that the petitioners failed to meet the threshold required by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17.

It observed that since the trial had already commenced and was at the stage of defendants' evidence, the petitioners were required to demonstrate that the information was not available to them earlier despite due diligence.

The Court held that facts appearing during cross-examination do not automatically grant a right to amend a Written Statement or Plaint, especially when all pleadings had already been addressed in the original W.S.

furthermore, the Court noted that the proposed amendment had no direct bearing on the actual controversy of the suit and that the petitioners failed to show any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

It ruled that in the absence of a showing of due diligence, an amendment cannot be granted after the trial has commenced.

The petition was found to be devoid of merit.