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

The original plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 726/2009 and executed a Will on 18 June 2010.

After his death on 30 December 2019, the petitioner and others were brought on record as his legal representatives on 14 December 2020, when the suit was at the evidence stage.

After evidence was completed and the suit had been heard and reserved for judgment, the petitioner applied under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the plaint to plead facts concerning the Will.

The Trial Court rejected the application with costs of ₹5,000. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, bars amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial unless the Court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before trial commenced.

The burden of establishing due diligence rests on the party seeking amendment; amendment is not available as a matter of right.

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

The amendment application was filed after the legal representatives had participated in the proceedings, evidence had concluded, and the suit had been reserved for judgment.

On reviewing the application and supporting affidavit, the High Court found that the petitioner had neither pleaded the requisite facts nor explained why the amendment could not have been sought earlier despite due diligence.

The asserted need for effective adjudication did not overcome the mandatory requirement in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17.

The writ petition was dismissed.