IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Naresh Kumar Devinder Singh & Another CORAM: Argued by:- NIDHI GUPTA, Constitution of India impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 dismissed. 2. behalf of the respondent taken on record. 3. Suit dated 25.09.2019 (Annexure P1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Naresh Kumar & Another Vs. Singh & Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate Mr. Jashan Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate for the respondents. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint, has been Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent/defendants and files Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed Civ 25.09.2019 (Annexure P1) seeking specific performance of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-455-2025 (O&M) Reserved on: 19.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 01.07.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate with Mr. Jashan Chopra, Advocate , Advocate petition under Article 227 of the filed by the plaintiffs for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC CPC for amendment of the plaint, has been Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate puts in appearance on and files Vakalatnama, which is Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed Civil seeking specific performance of 14 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Agreement to Sell dated 04.12.2015 was averred petitioners for total sale consideration of Rs.77,81,250/ paid by the petitioners to the respondent suit land stayed with the respondents. Even no target date was set for execution of the sale dee sale consideration along with interest; and other allied reliefs. 4. written statement dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P2) dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P3) 5. dated 29.8.2024 amendment of the plaint Agreement to Sell dated 04.12.2015 for suit land measuring 25 kana averred that the suit land was sold by petitioners for total sale consideration of Rs.77,81,250/ paid by the petitioners to the respondents. Despite that, suit land stayed with the respondents. Even no target date was set for execution of the sale deed. Alternate prayer sale consideration along with interest; and other allied reliefs. The suit was resisted by the respondents by filing written statement dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P2) 21.09.2021 (Annexure P3) was filed by the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners filed present application 29.8.2024 (Annexure P4) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amendment of the plaint to the following effect: “2. That while filling the suit, the plaintiffs Naresh Kumar and Ved Prakash could not inform their counsel about one fact, which took place in the house of defendant no. 1 Devinder Singh. In fact, on 03-03-2019 the father of the plaintiff Mr Sunder Lal S/o Uttam Chand visited the house of the defendant no. 1 Devinder Singh along with his son Prakash, his grandsons Rajan Gakhar and Rahul kumar, Wajir Singh (deceased) S/ o Ajit Singh for amicable settlement before filling the suit. The matter of execution of of sale deed was discussed there, where the defendant no. 1 Devinder Singh admitted that he will execute and register the sale deed of 3 Acre land in favour of plaintiffs. This discussion was recorded in the mobile of the son of the plaintiff Rajan Gakhar. The plaintiffs want to bring on record said visit suit land measuring 25 kanals. It sold by the respondents to the petitioners for total sale consideration of Rs.77,81,250/- all of which was Despite that, possession of the suit land stayed with the respondents. Even no target date was set for lternate prayer in the suit was for recovery of sale consideration along with interest; and other allied reliefs. The suit was resisted by the respondents by filing written statement dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure P2); to which replication was filed by the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners filed present application (Annexure P4) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for to the following effect: – That while filling the suit, the plaintiffs Naresh Kumar and Ved Prakash could not inform their counsel about one fact, which took place in the house of defendant no. 1 Devinder 2019 the father of the plaintiff Mr tam Chand visited the house of the defendant no. 1 Devinder Singh along with his son Ved , his grandsons Rajan Gakhar and Rahul kumar, Wajir Singh (deceased) S/ o Ajit Singh for amicable settlement before filling the suit. The matter of execution of registration of sale deed was discussed there, where the defendant no. 1 Devinder Singh admitted that he will execute and register the sale deed of 3 Acre land in favour of plaintiffs. This discussion was recorded in the mobile of the son of the plaintiff no. 1 Rajan Gakhar. The plaintiffs want to bring on record said visit 14 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document filling the suit. In said meeting, the defendant no.1 Devinder 6. filing reply dated 10.10.2 dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P6) dismissed. 7. petitioners that the impugned order is reasons for rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for amendment of plaint. Ld. Counsel learned trial court lost sight of the fact that written statemen question, however, and outcome of the meeting dated 03 place between above said persons. So, the plaintiffs want to add another paragraph in the plaint as para no. 12 03-2019, the father of the plaintiff Sunder Lal S/o Uttam Chand visited the house of the defendant Devinder Singh along with his son Ved Prakash, his grandsons Rajan Gakhar and Rahul kumar, Wazir Singh(deceased) S/o Ajit Singh discussed the matter at length for am filling the suit. In said meeting, the defendant no.1 Devinder Singh admitted that he will execute and register the sale deed of 3 Acre land in favour of plaintiffs soon and he also admitted that the plaintiff Naresh Kumar were nev rather he helped him whenever he needed. Whole of the instance was recorded in the mobile of the son of the plaintiff no. 1 Rajan Gakhar as three video clips. This application was resisted by the respondents by dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure P5) dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P6), application of the petitioners has been It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is unsustainable reasons for rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for amendment of Ld. Counsel contends that in passing the impugned order, the trial court lost sight of the fact that a written statement has denied specific performance of the Agreement in question, however, in the proposed evidence/video recordings in the and outcome of the meeting dated 03-03-2019, which took place between above said persons. So, the plaintiffs want to add another paragraph in the plaint as para no. 12-A. On 03- the father of the plaintiff Sunder Lal S/o Uttam Chand visited the house of the defendant Devinder Singh along with his son Ved Prakash, his grandsons Rajan Gakhar and Rahul kumar, Wazir Singh(deceased) S/o Ajit Singh discussed the matter at length for amicable settlement before filling the suit. In said meeting, the defendant no.1 Devinder Singh admitted that he will execute and register the sale deed of 3 Acre land in favour of plaintiffs soon and he also admitted that the plaintiff Naresh Kumar were never at fault rather he helped him whenever he needed. Whole of the instance was recorded in the mobile of the son of the plaintiff no. 1 Rajan Gakhar as three video clips.” application was resisted by the respondents by 024 (Annexure P5). Vide the impugned order , application of the petitioners has been It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the unsustainable for not assigning any reasons for rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for amendment of contends that in passing the impugned order, the although the respondent in his t has denied specific performance of the Agreement in in the proposed evidence/video recordings in the 14 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document possession of the petitioners, the respondent has admitted the said Agreement to Sell dated 04.12.2015. respondents been received by them. was to be executed by the petitioners/p plaintiffs requested the defendants for execution of Sale Deed, but they refused. Hence suit for specific performance was filed on 25.09.2019. Counsel contends that as such, it is imperative to bring the said conversation between th the matter. 8. very facts pleaded in the plaint, application. It is candidly admitted that the said facts in the plaint due to argued that mala fide intent behind the inadverten be caused to the plaint was filed, evidence of the plaintiffs was going on. evidence has not been closed on account of non PWs by defendants. Various time not cross-examine them. The learned trial court was constrained to pass orders either granting last opportunity to the defendants for cross possession of the petitioners, the respondent has admitted the said Agreement to Sell dated 04.12.2015. In the written statement, the respondents have also not denied that full amount of about Rs.78 lakh has been received by them. Since entire sale consideration was paid, the sale was to be executed by the respondents/d petitioners/plaintiffs on demand made by them. plaintiffs requested the defendants for execution of Sale Deed, but they refused. Hence suit for specific performance was filed on 25.09.2019. Counsel contends that as such, it is imperative to bring the said conversation between the parties on record for the proper adjudication of Ld. Counsel argues that it is very facts pleaded in the plaint, that the petitioners had filed the present application. It is candidly admitted that the said facts in the plaint due to ‘inadvertence’ on part of the plaintiffs. However, no new relief is sought by the petitioners mala fide intent behind the inadvertent omission. be caused to the respondents as, when application for amendment of plaint was filed, evidence of the plaintiffs was going on. evidence has not been closed on account of non PWs by defendants. Various times PWs were present but defendants did examine them. The learned trial court was constrained to pass orders either granting last opportunity to the defendants for cross possession of the petitioners, the respondent has admitted the said In the written statement, the that full amount of about Rs.78 lakh has Since entire sale consideration was paid, the sale respondents/defendants in favour of laintiffs on demand made by them. On 13.08.2019, the plaintiffs requested the defendants for execution of Sale Deed, but they refused. Hence suit for specific performance was filed on 25.09.2019. Ld. Counsel contends that as such, it is imperative to bring the said e parties on record for the proper adjudication of Ld. Counsel argues that it is only to substantiate the the petitioners had filed the present application. It is candidly admitted that the said facts did not find mention on part of the plaintiffs. However, it is no new relief is sought by the petitioners, and there is no omission. Even no prejudice will application for amendment of plaint was filed, evidence of the plaintiffs was going on. The plaintiffs’ evidence has not been closed on account of non-cross-examination of s PWs were present but defendants did examine them. The learned trial court was constrained to pass orders either granting last opportunity to the defendants for cross- 14 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document examination of PWs or imposing costs upon defendants. of the petitioners is not barred by limitation as the petitioners’ cross examination is yet to happen. Even the certificate as amended under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been given by the petitioner along with his applica present petition is not allowed, grave the petitioners. 9. CPC does not bar the amendment if it is necessary for determining the actual and real controversy and nature of controversy is not changed. support of his contentions, learned counsel Court in Sumeer # 384840; Dalip Singh & Others Vs. Rattan ID # 2531572 Singh & Others Law Finder Doc ID # 2649807, held that amendment is to be permitted even after commencement of trial, if the same is n not cause prejudice to the defendant. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 393861, examination of PWs or imposing costs upon defendants. petitioners is not barred by limitation as the petitioners’ cross examination is yet to happen. Even the certificate as amended under B of the Indian Evidence Act has been given by the petitioner along with his application. It is submitted that present petition is not allowed, grave prejudice and loss will be caused to the petitioners. It is lastly contended that P does not bar the amendment if it is necessary for determining the and real controversy and nature of controversy is not changed. support of his contentions, learned counsel Sumeer Jassal Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rani & Others Law Finder Doc ID Dalip Singh & Others Vs. Rattan ID # 2531572; M/s Vishesh Kumar Contractors & Others Vs. Surmukh Singh & Others Law Finder Doc ID # 2649807, held that amendment is to be permitted even after commencement of if the same is necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and does not cause prejudice to the defendant. Learned counsel further Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Abdul Rehman & Another Vs. Mohd. Ruldu Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 393861, wherein it is held “10. Next, we have to see whether the proposed amendments would alter the claim/cause of action of the plaintiffs. In view of the same, we verified the averments in the un examination of PWs or imposing costs upon defendants. Thus, Application petitioners is not barred by limitation as the petitioners’ cross- examination is yet to happen. Even the certificate as amended under B of the Indian Evidence Act has been given by the petitioner . It is submitted that on the other hand if the prejudice and loss will be caused to It is lastly contended that Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 does not bar the amendment if it is necessary for determining the and real controversy and nature of controversy is not changed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon judgments of this Jassal Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rani & Others Law Finder Doc ID Dalip Singh & Others Vs. Rattan Lal & Others Law Finder Doc M/s Vishesh Kumar Contractors & Others Vs. Surmukh Singh & Others Law Finder Doc ID # 2649807, in all of which it is broadly held that amendment is to be permitted even after commencement of ecessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and does further relies upon judgment of the “Abdul Rehman & Another Vs. Mohd. Ruldu & wherein it is held that: - Next, we have to see whether the proposed amendments would alter the claim/cause of action of the plaintiffs. In view of the same, we verified the averments in the un-amended 14 the & Next, we have to see whether the proposed amendments would alter the claim/cause of action of the plaintiffs. In view amended SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. view of law and facts related to the controversy involved in the suit and hence is necessary to be determined for all times to come. cause of action nor in nature of suit. plaintiff is yet to be cross plaint. As rightly pointed out by Ms. Manmeet Aro counsel for the appellants that the entire factual matrix for the relief sought for under the proposed amendment had already been set out in the un-amended plaint. We are satisfied that the challenge to the voidness of those sale deeds was impl the factual matrix set out in the un therefore, the relief of cancellation of sale deeds as sought by amendment does not change the nature of the suit as alleged. It is settled law that if necessary factual basis for amendment i already contained in the plaint, the relief sought on the said basis would not change the nature of the suit. In view of the same, the contrary view expressed by the trial Court and High Court cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the relief sought by way of amendment by the appellants could also be claimed by them by way of a separate suit on the date of filing of the application. Considering the date of the sale deeds and the date on which the application was filed for amendment of the plaint, we are satisfied that the reliefs claimed are not barred in law and no prejudice should have been caused to respondent Nos. 1-3 (defendant Nos. 1 amendments were allowed and would in fact avoid of litigation.” Ld. Counsel for the petitioners accordingly prays that in view of law and facts, the amendment may please be allowed as same is related to the controversy involved in the suit and hence is necessary to be determined for all times to come. Moreover, there i cause of action nor in nature of suit. Evidence of plaintiff is going on and plaintiff is yet to be cross-examined. No prejudice would be caused to the plaint. As rightly pointed out by Ms. Manmeet Arora, learned counsel for the appellants that the entire factual matrix for the relief sought for under the proposed amendment had already amended plaint. We are satisfied that the challenge to the voidness of those sale deeds was implicit in the factual matrix set out in the un-amended plaint and, therefore, the relief of cancellation of sale deeds as sought by amendment does not change the nature of the suit as alleged. It is settled law that if necessary factual basis for amendment is already contained in the plaint, the relief sought on the said basis would not change the nature of the suit. In view of the same, the contrary view expressed by the trial Court and High Court cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the relief ght by way of amendment by the appellants could also be claimed by them by way of a separate suit on the date of filing of the application. Considering the date of the sale deeds and the date on which the application was filed for amendment of we are satisfied that the reliefs claimed are not barred in law and no prejudice should have been caused to 3 (defendant Nos. 1-3 therein) if the amendments were allowed and would in fact avoid multiplicity Ld. Counsel for the petitioners accordingly prays that in the amendment may please be allowed as same is related to the controversy involved in the suit and hence is necessary to oreover, there is neither change in vidence of plaintiff is going on and o prejudice would be caused to the 14 ra, learned counsel for the appellants that the entire factual matrix for the relief sought for under the proposed amendment had already amended plaint. We are satisfied that icit in amended plaint and, therefore, the relief of cancellation of sale deeds as sought by amendment does not change the nature of the suit as alleged. s already contained in the plaint, the relief sought on the said basis would not change the nature of the suit. In view of the same, the contrary view expressed by the trial Court and High Court cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the relief ght by way of amendment by the appellants could also be claimed by them by way of a separate suit on the date of filing of the application. Considering the date of the sale deeds and the date on which the application was filed for amendment of we are satisfied that the reliefs claimed are not barred in law and no prejudice should have been caused to 3 therein) if the multiplicity SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document defendants as he will get an opportunity to file written statement and cross-examine Singh has been cross be seen/touched at the time of deciding the amendment. could have mentioned about the video recording in his evid was foundation of said video recording in the pleading. fact amendment is being sought and no delay is going to occur. amendment is absolutely related to agreement to sell and suit property and is between the same parties record certificate under Section 65 support of the said video recording/pen drive, which is also on the record. In order to settle the controversy technicalities should not be come in way. allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 12. vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that it is the own video recording application (Annexure P4) reveals that admittedly the said evidence was not produced due to CPC, the same constitute is stated that defendants as he will get an opportunity to file written statement and examine the witnesses of plaintiff (as only formal ingh has been cross-examined). The merits of the amendment are not to be seen/touched at the time of deciding the amendment. could have mentioned about the video recording in his evid was foundation of said video recording in the pleading. fact amendment is being sought and no delay is going to occur. amendment is absolutely related to agreement to sell and suit property and is between the same parties. The petit d certificate under Section 65-B of E support of the said video recording/pen drive, which is also on the record. n order to settle the controversy technicalities should not be come in way. It is accordingly prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and bmits that it is the own pleading of the petitioners that the said alleged video recordings were not produced due to “stress”. application (Annexure P4) reveals that admittedly the said evidence was not produced due to ‘oversight’. Ld. counsel argues that , the same constitutes no ground to permit is stated that duty is cast on the plaintiff to exercise due diligence. Page 7 of 14 defendants as he will get an opportunity to file written statement and the witnesses of plaintiff (as only formal PW Yadwinder he merits of the amendment are not to be seen/touched at the time of deciding the amendment. The petitioner could have mentioned about the video recording in his evidence if there was foundation of said video recording in the pleading. Due to this very fact amendment is being sought and no delay is going to occur. The amendment is absolutely related to agreement to sell and suit property he petitionerhas already placed on Evidence Act in trial Court in support of the said video recording/pen drive, which is also on the record. n order to settle the controversy technicalities should not be allowed to It is accordingly prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and pleading of the petitioners that the said alleged not produced due to “stress”. A bare reading of application (Annexure P4) reveals that admittedly the said evidence was not unsel argues that as per Order 6 Rule 17 no ground to permit amendment of the plaint. It is cast on the plaintiff to exercise due diligence. However, 14 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and pleading of the petitioners that the said alleged A bare reading of application (Annexure P4) reveals that admittedly the said evidence was not Order 6 Rule 17 It However, SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document there is no plea regarding due diligence in the said application. As such, the impugned order suffers 13. September 2019; whereas the present application has been filed 5 years after commencement of t impugned order, even at the time of filing his affidavit of evidence, the petitioner has made no reference whatsoever to this alleged recording. respondent in his reply to the application (Annexure P5), mentioned that leading evidence including number of last opportunities. that the present application has been filed only with the express purpose of delaying the proceedings 14. proposed amendment, before the learned trial Court which will change the nature of the suit. submitted that prayer of specific performance. the said evidence is necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter, liable to be rejected. It is lastly pointed out that farmer, whereas the petitioners are commission agents. prayed that the present application be dismissed. relies upon judgment of this Court in Finder Doc ID # 463043 plea regarding due diligence in the said application. As such, the impugned order suffers from no error. It is further submitted that the suit was filed in September 2019; whereas the present application has been filed 5 years after commencement of trial. It is pointed out that as noticed in the impugned order, even at the time of filing his affidavit of evidence, the petitioner has made no reference whatsoever to this alleged recording. respondent in his reply to the application (Annexure P5), mentioned that the petitioner has already availed more than 30 dates for leading evidence including number of last opportunities. that the present application has been filed only with the express purpose of delaying the proceedings. Ld. Counsel further contends proposed amendment, the petitioners are seeking to misrepresent the facts before the learned trial Court which will change the nature of the suit. submitted that the petitioners are now making a prayer of specific performance. As such, argument of the petitioners that the said evidence is necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter, liable to be rejected. It is lastly pointed out that whereas the petitioners are commission agents. prayed that the present application be dismissed. relies upon judgment of this Court in “Shabbu Vs. Nishan & Others” Law Finder Doc ID # 463043; judgment of Ca plea regarding due diligence in the said application. As such, the It is further submitted that the suit was filed in September 2019; whereas the present application has been filed 5 years rial. It is pointed out that as noticed in the impugned order, even at the time of filing his affidavit of evidence, the petitioner has made no reference whatsoever to this alleged recording. The respondent in his reply to the application (Annexure P5), has also the petitioner has already availed more than 30 dates for leading evidence including number of last opportunities. It is contended that the present application has been filed only with the express purpose of contends that by way of the the petitioners are seeking to misrepresent the facts before the learned trial Court which will change the nature of the suit. It is making a new claim beyond the argument of the petitioners that the said evidence is necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter, is liable to be rejected. It is lastly pointed out that the respondent is a poor whereas the petitioners are commission agents. It is accordingly prayed that the present application be dismissed. In support, ld. counsel “Shabbu Vs. Nishan & Others” Law judgment of Calcutta High Court in “Gautam 14 plea regarding due diligence in the said application. As such, the It is further submitted that the suit was filed in September 2019; whereas the present application has been filed 5 years rial. It is pointed out that as noticed in the impugned order, even at the time of filing his affidavit of evidence, the The has also the petitioner has already availed more than 30 dates for It is contended that the present application has been filed only with the express purpose of by way of the the petitioners are seeking to misrepresent the facts It is new claim beyond the argument of the petitioners that is the respondent is a poor It is accordingly counsel “Shabbu Vs. Nishan & Others” Law “Gautam SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Mukherjee & Others Vs. Abani Mohan Goswami” Law finder Doc ID # 2148494; judgment of Allahabad High Court in Vs. Shri Anwar Uddin” Law Finder Doc ID # 2307414 High Court in Law Finder Doc ID # 625387; in “Anil Kumar Vs. Shri Tara Dutt Sharma” Law Finder Doc ID # 1594538. 15. 16. case file in detail submissions submissions recorded hereinbelow 17. just, 18. amendment is to be permitted in of the real question/controversy at hand. cannot be read in isolation of Mukherjee & Others Vs. Abani Mohan Goswami” Law finder Doc ID # judgment of Allahabad High Court in Vs. Shri Anwar Uddin” Law Finder Doc ID # 2307414 High Court in “Shree Narayan &Anr. Vs. Mahendra Prasad Yadav & Ors.” Law Finder Doc ID # 625387; and judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court “Anil Kumar Vs. Shri Tara Dutt Sharma” Law Finder Doc ID # 1594538. No other argument is raised on behalf of the I have heard ld. counsel for the case file in detail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf of both the parties advanced on behalf of the petitioners recorded hereinbelow. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads as follows: “17. Amendment of pleadings. - the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” A bare reading of the amendment is to be permitted in justiciable terms for the determination of the real question/controversy at hand. cannot be read in isolation of the proviso Mukherjee & Others Vs. Abani Mohan Goswami” Law finder Doc ID # judgment of Allahabad High Court in “Shri Firoz Uddin & 4 Others Vs. Shri Anwar Uddin” Law Finder Doc ID # 2307414; judgment of Patna “Shree Narayan &Anr. Vs. Mahendra Prasad Yadav & Ors.” judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court “Anil Kumar Vs. Shri Tara Dutt Sharma” Law Finder Doc ID # 1594538. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. counsel for the parties and perused the my thoughtful consideration to the rival the parties, I find no merit in the on behalf of the petitioners for the reasons Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads as follows:- -The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his and on such terms as may be and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not fore the commencement of trial.” A bare reading of the above provision shows that justiciable terms for the determination However, the said provision proviso thereto, which further 14 Mukherjee & Others Vs. Abani Mohan Goswami” Law finder Doc ID # “Shri Firoz Uddin & 4 Others judgment of Patna “Shree Narayan &Anr. Vs. Mahendra Prasad Yadav & Ors.” judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document categorically allowed after the trial is conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. amendment, despite exercise of due diligence not have pleaded 19. bring itself to proviso. The undisputed facts of the sequence are that the Civil Suit (Annexure P1) was filed by the petitioners on 25.09.2019; reply thereto was filed by the respondents on 16.12.2020 (Annexure P2); replication was filed by the petitioner on 21.09.2021 (Annexure P3); is commenced. of 3.3.2019 i.e. the said evidence was admittedly in possession of the petitioners even prior to filing of the suit. the plaint. Even the learned trial Court as far back as on 29.08.2023, no mention whatsoever was made of the video clip that the said video application for amendment dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P4) stipulates that “...no application for amendment shall be after the trial is commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. amendment, it is incumbent upon this Court to despite exercise of due diligence, the party seeking the amendment not have pleaded the facts now sought to be incorporated. In the peculiar facts of th bring itself to the conclusion required as per law The undisputed facts of the present sequence are that the Civil Suit (Annexure P1) was filed by the petitioners on 25.09.2019; reply thereto was filed by the respondents on 16.12.2020 (Annexure P2); replication was filed by the petitioner on 21.09.2021 (Annexure P3); issues were framed on 28.10.2021; whereafter trial had commenced. As per the petitioners themselves, the of 3.3.2019 i.e. the said evidence was admittedly in possession of the petitioners even prior to filing of the suit. Yet, the same Even in the affidavit in evidence filed by the the learned trial Court as far back as on 29.08.2023, no mention whatsoever was made of the video clips dated 3.3.2019 that the said video clips are sought to be application for amendment dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P4) no application for amendment shall be unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” Thus, prior to permitting this Court to veritably conclude that the party seeking the amendment could the facts now sought to be incorporated. facts of this case, this Court is unable to required as per law/ stipulated in the present case in chronological sequence are that the Civil Suit (Annexure P1) was filed by the petitioners on 25.09.2019; reply thereto was filed by the respondents on 16.12.2020 (Annexure P2); replication was filed by the petitioner on 21.09.2021 sues were framed on 28.10.2021; whereafter trial had As per the petitioners themselves, the alleged recordings are of 3.3.2019 i.e. the said evidence was admittedly in possession of the Yet, the same find no mention in affidavit in evidence filed by the petitioners before the learned trial Court as far back as on 29.08.2023, no mention dated 3.3.2019. It is only now sought to be incorporated by way of application for amendment dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P4). It is 14 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document therefore crystal clear that the petitioners have execrably failed to exercise due diligence as required under law. 20. dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P4) filed by the petitioners, gives no reasons whatsoever for not mentioning the alleged recordings in the plaint, or in the affidavit of evidence. that there is no plea regarding due diligence. On the contrary, it has been candidly admitted by the petitioners/applicants that while filing the suit, the plaintiffs “ just come to the mind of the be mentioned in the plaint earlier due to stress over the plaintiff……” has been admitted by counsel for the petitioners that the facts of the proposed amendment were not included in the plaint due to ‘over Needless to say, the above said reasons cited by the petitioners constitute no ground for permitting amendment. inadvertence, oversight, or sheer carelessness as in the present case, constitute no ground for permit the petitioners cannot be permitted to fill the lacunae in their case. Provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not to fill lacuna in the pleadings. 21. amendment after diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial therefore crystal clear that the petitioners have execrably failed to exercise due diligence as required under law. It is to be noted that the application for amendment dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P4) filed by the petitioners, gives no reasons whatsoever for not mentioning the alleged recordings in the plaint, or in the affidavit of evidence. In fact, the application for amendment shows ere is no plea regarding due diligence. On the contrary, it has been candidly admitted by the petitioners/applicants that while filing the suit, the plaintiffs “could not inform their counsel” just come to the mind of the plaintiff”; and that “ be mentioned in the plaint earlier due to stress over the plaintiff……” admitted by counsel for the petitioners that the facts of the proposed amendment were not included in the plaint due to ‘over Needless to say, the above said reasons cited by the petitioners constitute no ground for permitting amendment. As per established tenets of law, inadvertence, oversight, or sheer carelessness as in the present case, constitute no ground for permitting amendment. By way of amendment, the petitioners cannot be permitted to fill the lacunae in their case. Provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not to fill lacuna in the pleadings. It is undisputed that the amendment after commencement of trial is envisaged is if ‘ diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial.’ In dealing with cases of such nature, therefore crystal clear that the petitioners have execrably failed to exercise due diligence as required under law. he application for amendment dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P4) filed by the petitioners, gives no reasons whatsoever for not mentioning the alleged recordings in the plaint, or in application for amendment shows ere is no plea regarding due diligence. On the contrary, it has been candidly admitted by the petitioners/applicants that while filing the suit, could not inform their counsel”; and that “this incidence has ; and that “this incidence could not be mentioned in the plaint earlier due to stress over the plaintiff……”. It admitted by counsel for the petitioners that the facts of the proposed amendment were not included in the plaint due to ‘oversight’. Needless to say, the above said reasons cited by the petitioners constitute As per established tenets of law, inadvertence, oversight, or sheer carelessness as in the present case, ting amendment. By way of amendment, the petitioners cannot be permitted to fill the lacunae in their case. Provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not to fill lacuna in the pleadings. the only situation in which commencement of trial is envisaged is if ‘in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before In dealing with cases of such nature, there is 14 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document necessity to of the provision and proper adjudication of the matter and equitable construction of provision. even though the said evidence was in the possession of the petitioners, and is stated to be of utmost importance, yet it has not been mentioned either in the plaint or in the affidavit filed by the petitioners; to ‘oversight’. amendment cannot be permitted. 22. application under Order 6 the petitioner permitted as per law plaintiff evidence is almost at its conclusion, also been conducted by the defendants. (Annexure P- number of dates to lead his evidence. amendment would change the nature of the suit. grossly prejudicial and inequitable to the respondents if amendment is permitted at this belated stage. 23. holding that in applications of such nature a liberal view ought to be taken. However, keeping in view the entirety of the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not convinced to grant the prayer necessity to delicately traverse the fine line between strict interpretation of the provision and proper adjudication of the matter and equitable construction of provision. In the present case though the said evidence was in the possession of the petitioners, nd is stated to be of utmost importance, yet it has not been mentioned either in the plaint or in the affidavit filed by the petitioners; to ‘oversight’. It is my considered view, that in such amendment cannot be permitted. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment has been the petitioners much after trial had commenced permitted as per law. Admittedly, plaintiff witnesses have been plaintiff evidence is almost at its conclusion, also been conducted by the defendants. A -7) shows that if not 30, the petitioner has number of dates to lead his evidence. Furthermore, permitting the said amendment would change the nature of the suit. grossly prejudicial and inequitable to the respondents if amendment is permitted at this belated stage. This Court is well aware of the preceden holding that in applications of such nature a liberal view ought to be taken. However, keeping in view the entirety of the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not convinced to grant the prayer fine line between strict interpretation of the provision and proper adjudication of the matter and equitable the present case it cannot be ignored that though the said evidence was in the possession of the petitioners, nd is stated to be of utmost importance, yet it has not been mentioned either in the plaint or in the affidavit filed by the petitioners; merely due It is my considered view, that in such a situation, Moreover, it cannot be ignored that the present for amendment has been filed by trial had commenced – which, in itself is not Admittedly, plaintiff witnesses have been examined, plaintiff evidence is almost at its conclusion, and cross-examination has A perusal of the zimni orders if not 30, the petitioner has availed sufficient Furthermore, permitting the said amendment would change the nature of the suit. Therefore, it would be grossly prejudicial and inequitable to the respondents if amendment is This Court is well aware of the precedent case law holding that in applications of such nature a liberal view ought to be taken. However, keeping in view the entirety of the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not convinced to grant the prayer 14 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of the petitioner 29.2.2024, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Finder Doc Id # 2510571 24. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahale, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 25. Id # 244372 has 26. (P&H) Law Finder Doc ID # 205192 of the petitioners. I am supported in my view by recent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Finder Doc Id # 2510571 wherein it is held that: “Amendment of pleadings – Oversight cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings at the fag end of the trial.”. Reference may also be made to another Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pandit Malhari Mahale v. Monika Pandit Mahale, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1691426 “Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17 Plaint - Amendment application filed after evidence begun absence of any finding that Court is satisfied in spite of due diligence, party could not introduce a commencement of trial - Therefore, amendment of plaint unsustainable and set aside.” This Court in Rati Ram v. Inder (P&H) : Law Finder Doc has held as under:- “Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17 Pleadings - Amendment cannot be allowed as a matter of right -Amendment was not at all necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties not bona fide as such, it was only filed to delay the proceeding further when the su years - Amendment right decline. Again in “K.B. Sharma Vs. Again in “K.B. Sharma Vs. Shri Keerti Karan Dharni” Law Finder Doc ID # 205192, this Court has “A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17, Proviso Amendment of written statement of trial, amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed, until and unless, the party seeking amendment establishes that despite due diligence, it could not raise the pleas sought to be incorporated by way of amendment pported in my view by recent judgment dated of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basavaraj v. Indira (SC) : Law that: - Oversight cannot be accepted as amendment in the pleadings at the fag Reference may also be made to another judgment of Pandit Malhari Mahale v. Monika Pandit wherein it is held as under: - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17 - Amendment of Amendment application filed after evidence begun - In absence of any finding that Court is satisfied in spite of due diligence, party could not introduce amendment before Therefore, amendment of plaint Rati Ram v. Inder (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17 - Amendment of Amendment cannot be allowed as a matter of Amendment was not at all necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties - The application was not bona fide as such, it was only filed to delay the proceeding further when the suit remained pending for seven Amendment right decline.” “K.B. Sharma Vs. Shri Keerti Karan Dharni” this Court has held that: - A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17, Proviso - Amendment of written statement - After the commencement of trial, amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed, until and unless, the party seeking amendment establishes that despite could not raise the pleas sought to be incorporated by way of amendment - Where defendant was 14 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 27. petitioners are distinguishable on facts and law. present petition is 28. 01.07.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: already in knowledge of such pleas at the time of filing the original written statement - Amendment cannot be allowed. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and law. present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No already in knowledge of such pleas at the time of filing the Amendment cannot be allowed.” The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and law. In view of the above, the Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 14 SUNENA 2025.07.01 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document