Trial in Civil Suit Commences Only After Filing of Evidence Affidavit for Purposes of Order 6 Rule 17

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a Title Suit (No. 01/2021) seeking a declaration of right, title, and interest over suit land, eviction of the respondent, and cancellation of an agreement

Post-institution, the petitioner discovered that his periodic patta had been cancelled by revenue authorities via orders dated 12.01.2021 and 27.01.2021

The petitioner sought to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to implead government officials and challenge the cancellation to prevent multiplicity of suits

The Trial Court rejected the amendment on 16.08.2023, citing that the trial had already commenced and that the amendment introduced a new cause of action

1. Whether the trial of the civil suit had "commenced" within the meaning of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, thereby barring the amendment

2. Whether the proposed amendment to include the challenge against revenue authorities was necessary to determine the real controversy and avoid multiplicity of proceedings

Rule 17 of Order 6 of the CPC allows the court to permit amendments at any stage if necessary for determining the real question in controversy, provided that after the trial commences, the party must prove "due diligence"

The court relied on Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani Mehra [(2018) 2 SCC 132], which established that trial commences when issues are framed and the case is fixed for hearing, specifically identifying the filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief as a marker of commencement

It further considered Vidyabai v. Padmalatha regarding the pre-conditions of the proviso to Rule 17

The High Court observed that while the Trial Court had framed issues and fixed multiple dates for evidence, the petitioner had not yet filed his evidence-on-affidavit

the Court determined that the trial had not "strictly" commenced as per the standard set in Mohinder Kumar Mehra, rendering the restrictive proviso of Rule 17 inapplicable

The Court reasoned that amendments should be liberalized to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, even if sought belatedly, provided they do not cause irreparable prejudice

Although the cause of action regarding the patta cancellation was distinct, it was intrinsically connected to the suit land and title dispute

The Court found that the Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction correctly by viewing the stage of the proceeding as a total bar to the amendment

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order and allowed the revision petition. The petitioner was permitted to file the amended plaint by 31.07.2026, subject to a condition precedent of paying a cost of ₹5,000 to the respondent due to the delay. The respondent was granted the right to file an additional written statement.