Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Party Must Show That Proposed Amendment Could Not Have Been Brought Earlier Despite Exercise Of Due Diligence: P&H High Court

In the instant case, the Petitioners (original defendants) had sought to amend the written statement. The Petitioners were impleaded as legal heirs of the original defendant. They claimed that after putting in an appearance before the trial Court, they learnt that the written statement filed by their predecessor suffered from some deficiency and therefore, they moved an application for amendment of the written statement purportedly to incorporate certain relevant facts, which would in turn clarify the real and actual facts before the trial Court

After considering the law laid down in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the court held that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 makes it clear that once the trial has commenced, amendment of pleadings should not be allowed unless parties are able to show that despite exercise of due diligence, the proposed amendment could not have been brought forth earlier or before the commencement of the trial.

After placing reliance on the judgements in Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another, 2009(2) SCC 409 and Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530, the court concluded that in the instant case, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been moved after the commencement of the trial and without any justification of the delay as to the satisfaction of the court.

"The petitioners have miserably failed to satisfy this Court as to why the proposed amendment was not sought before the commencement of the trial, more so, when the said facts were already in the knowledge of defendant-Bhagirath as well as the petitioners. Thus, allowing any amendment at this stage would be highly prejudicial to the respondents."

Accordingly, the court dismissed the present petition.