Post-trial commencement amendments require proof of due diligence and avoidance of prejudice to ongoing proceedings.

The plaintiffs filed a suit in 2006 seeking partition, declaration, and permanent injunction regarding properties in Lajpat Nagar and Gurgaon, claiming they are joint family properties

Defendant No. 3 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC (I.A. No. 20461/2025) seeking to amend his written statement and introduce additional documents, including a Memorandum of Settlement (2018), a holographic Will (2003), and probate proceedings

The applicant contended these subsequent events reinforce his claim of exclusive ownership

The non-applicants opposed the plea, citing inordinate delay, the fact that the Will was always known to the applicant, and that a prior opportunity to file a replication in 2017 was ignored

The suit is currently at an advanced stage of trial

1. Whether an amendment to the written statement can be permitted under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC after the commencement of trial without a showing of due diligence

2. Whether the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy or if it would cause irreparable prejudice to the other parties

The court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which grants the court discretion to allow amendments but restricts such power once trial has commenced unless the party shows that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite "due diligence"

It relied on the precedent North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (2008) 8 SCC 511, established that amendments should be allowed if they are necessary to determine the real controversy and do not work injustice to the other side

The court found that the applicant failed the "due diligence" test as he neglected to include these averments in a replication despite an express opportunity granted by a court order dated 18.1.2017

Furthermore, the court noted that the documents the applicant sought to plead were already exhibited and part of the trial record; thus, the applicant suffered no prejudice by the absence of formal amendments

The court reasoned that allowing the amendment at this "advanced stage" would effectively "set the clock back by several years," causing inherent prejudice to the other parties in a suit pending since 2006

The court emphasized that the proposed amendment did not alter the basic substratum of the applicant's case

The court directed the parties to appear before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 12.08.2026 for further directions in the main suit