Post-trial amendments require demonstrated due diligence under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction concerning Site No. 44/8, carved out of Survey No. 44. The defendants claimed rights over a larger property and another item.

After both sides had completed their evidence, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to challenge four registered instruments and add corresponding declaratory prayers, alleging fraud. She also sought to implead persons connected with those instruments.

The Trial Court rejected both applications, noting, among other things, that the documents were within the plaintiff’s knowledge, had been involved in another suit between the parties, and that no explanation had been given for not seeking amendment before trial.

The plaintiff challenged the common order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner satisfied the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC by showing that, despite due diligence, the proposed matter could not have been raised before commencement of trial.

2. Whether the proposed declaratory prayers were barred by limitation.

3. Whether the proposed defendants could be impleaded independently of the proposed amendment.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings but, after commencement of trial, its proviso bars amendment unless the Court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier.

In Basavaraj v. Indira, (2024) 3 SCC 705, the Supreme Court held that this requirement is mandatory, mere oversight is insufficient, and the burden lies on the party seeking amendment; it also observed that relief sought by amendment may be refused where a fresh suit for that relief would be time-barred.

Under Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1128, allowing an amendment does not foreclose a limitation objection, which may be framed and decided at trial.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC permits impleadment of a person whose presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication; however, the Court held that impleadment founded solely on a proposed amendment cannot stand once that amendment is refused.

The amendment was sought after completion of evidence, yet the plaintiff offered no explanation showing why the challenges to the instruments could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence. The instruments were within her knowledge and had been the subject of O.S. No. 260/2018, in which she suffered a decree.

The Court therefore held that the mandatory proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC was not satisfied and upheld rejection of the amendment.

It did not separately decide whether the proposed prayers were time-barred, because its conclusion on the proviso made that inquiry unnecessary.

The proposed defendants’ joinder depended on the amendment, and no independent need for their presence in the existing suit was shown.

The writ petition was dismissed.