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

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while upholding Trial Court's judgment dismissing an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of written statement on ground of delay, held that parties seeking amendment must show that despite exercise of due diligence, the proposed amendment could not have been brought forth earlier or before the commencement of the trial. The bench comprising Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed that while there can be no doubt that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in allowing such amendments of pleadings, which may be necessary for a just and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties, however, it should cannot be expected to turn a blind eye, rather it should stay alive to any prejudice or injustice, that can be caused to the opposite party if the application for amendment of pleadings is declined. 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 CourtAfter 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.Case Title: Bhagirath @ Bhaga (deceased) thr. LRs Versus Ranjit Singh and othersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 186 Click Here To Read/Download Order

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

Drishti Yadav

Tags