Court Must Scrutinize "Due Diligence" Undertaken By Parties Before Allowing Amendment Applications After Conclusion Of Trial: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasized that while the power to allow amendments is broad, it is subject to the condition that the applicant demonstrates sufficient diligence in raising the matter before the trial commences.

Expounding on the term “Due Diligence” used in Order VI Rule 17 CPC which deals with the amendment of pleadings the court observed,

“.. Due diligence” means taking of all reasonable precautions as the circumstances of a particular case would demand. In Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, Second Edition, the expression “due diligence” has been stated to mean such watchful caution and foresight as the circumstances of the particular case demands”.

These observations came in a plea where the petitioners challenged an order dismissing their application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint after the trial had concluded. The petitioners sought to introduce a challenge to an agreement to sell and a partition claim.

The Court, while acknowledging the liberal interpretation of Order VI Rule 17, clarified that post-trial amendments are subject to stricter scrutiny. The proviso to the rule mandates that the applicant must explain why the matter could not be raised before the trial began, despite due diligence. The Court interpreted "due diligence" to mean reasonable precautions commensurate with the circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court's decisions in Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through LRs v. M/S. K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & anr. and Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr. were referenced to elucidate the principles governing amendments.

The Court emphasized that the primary objective is to determine the real dispute between the parties, and amendments should facilitate this. However, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 imposes a jurisdictional limitation, requiring the court to ascertain if the applicant exercised due diligence, the bench underscored.

In the present case, the Court found that the petitioners had knowledge of the agreement to sell since the defendants attached a copy to their written statement. Despite this, they delayed the amendment application until the trial's conclusion without providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court deemed this absence of "due diligence" fatal to the petitioners' case.

“In the present case, the petitioners/plaintiffs have not offered any explanation, much less a plausible explanation for their delayed approach in seeking amendment. Thus, element of “due diligence” on the part of the petitioners/plaintiffs is missing in the instant case”, the bench remarked.

Additionally, the proposed amendment sought to introduce a partition claim, fundamentally altering the suit's nature, which is generally impermissible.

Considering these factors, the Court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: GURMEET SINGH & ORS Vs DALGIT SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 237

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment