Tenant’s Claim Of Misplacing Lease Didn’t Explain Late Defence Amendment: Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection After Cross-Examination

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner demonstrated the due diligence required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC to support an amendment sought after commencement of trial

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, holding that he had not established due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and that no ground for supervisory interference was made out.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were closed

01Facts

The respondents filed a suit for ejectment, possession and arrears of rent on 25 July 2022.

p. 4 · ¶ 6

The petitioner filed his written statement on 19 October 2022 and later applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend it, asserting that a lease agreement dated 10 August 2020 had been misplaced and recently traced

p. 4, 6 · ¶ 6, 9

The Trial Court dismissed the application, finding that the petitioner knew of the agreement when he filed his written statement and that the amendment was sought belatedly, after cross-examination of PW-1, to fill a lacuna

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7–8

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution

p. 2 · ¶ 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner demonstrated the due diligence required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC to support an amendment sought after commencement of trial

pp. 3–4, 6–7 · ¶ 4–5, 9–10

ii.2. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to permit the amendment warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

p. 7 · ¶ 11

03Law Applied

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings, but its proviso requires a party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to satisfy the court that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier; the Court treated this requirement as mandatory

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9

The judgment also referred to the Supreme Court decision reported at (2006) 12 SCC 1, as quoted in the Trial Court’s order, in support of refusing a belated amendment where sufficient reasons for delay were not shown and the amendment would fill a lacuna

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8

The petitioner invoked Article 227, under which the High Court considered whether interference with the Trial Court’s order was warranted

p. 2, 7 · ¶ 1, 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s explanation was that the lease agreement had been misplaced and was only recently found.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9–10

The Court held that this did not explain why the agreement could not have been produced earlier, particularly since the petitioner knew of it when filing his written statement.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9–10

In the circumstances, and given that the application followed cross-examination, the Court agreed that the amendment was a belated attempt to fill a lacuna rather than a matter that could not have been raised despite due diligence.

p. 7 · ¶ 10

It therefore found no basis to interfere with the Trial Court’s decision.

p. 7 · ¶ 11