REJECTION OF AMENDMENT APPLICATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE URGINNG PURE QUESTIONS OF LAW ON EXISTING PLEADINGS

The opposite party (Plaintiff) filed a Small Cause Suit (No. 26 of 2022) for eviction and recovery of rent against the revisionist (Defendant).

After the commencement of the trial—specifically after the plaintiff filed evidence and the suit was fixed for cross-examination—the defendant moved Application No. 80-Ga under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend his written statement.

The amendment sought to challenge the authority of the 'Sarvarakar' (manager) based on a separate pending civil suit regarding trust management.

The trial court rejected the application on March 23, 2026, finding that it introduced a new factual foundation and attempted to resile from previous admissions.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the amendment application on the grounds that it sought to withdraw admissions and introduce a new case after the commencement of trial.

2. Whether the rejection of a factual amendment precludes a party from raising pure questions of law arising from the existing record.

Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, emphasizing the "proviso" added by the 2002 Amendment, which mandates that no amendment be allowed after the trial has commenced unless "due diligence" is proved.

Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons regarding the necessity of amendments for determining the real controversy.

Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co., which prohibits amendments that displace admissions conferring rights on the opposite party.

Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, which establishes that the "due diligence" requirement in the proviso is mandatory.

The Court observed that the proposed amendment was not a mere clarification but a departure from clear admissions regarding the tenancy and the status of the Sarvarakar.

Since the trial had already commenced (witness affidavits filed), the revisionist failed to meet the high threshold of "due diligence" required by the Order VI Rule 17 proviso.

The Court distinguished between "factual pleadings" and "legal submissions," reasoning that while a party cannot belatedly alter the factual matrix or withdraw admissions, they cannot be barred from arguing pure points of law that emerge from the existing evidence/pleadings and require no fresh factual enquiry.

The counsel for the revisionist eventually conceded that the specific amendment need not be pressed so long as legal arguments remained open.

The revisionist is at liberty to advance all pure questions of law before the trial court, provided such contentions do not necessitate fresh evidence or investigation into new facts.

The revision was disposed of with the observation that the trial court should determine such legal issues independently.