CR-2428-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2428-2026 Date of decision: 07.04.2026 Randhir Singh ...Peoner Versus Gurmeet Singh ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present peon has been filed by the defendant of Civil Suit bearing CIS No. CS-37/2021 tled Gurmeet Singh vs. Randhir Singh, pending before the learned Addional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, assailing the order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby his applica- on under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the wri:en statement has been declined. 2. A brief factual background would show that the plainff ins- tuted a summary suit in the year 2021 under Order 37 CPC for recovery of ₹8,36,875/- on the basis of a pronote and receipt. Upon entering appear- ance, the defendant filed his wri:en statement on 23.03.2022. Issues were framed and the pares proceeded to trial. The plainff led and concluded his evidence. It is only therea@er, when the ma:er had reached the stage of defendant’s evidence, that the applicaon under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC came to be filed seeking amendment of the wri:en statement to incorporate the plea that the pronote did not bear the signature of the scribe Surinder Singh and that the receipt was undated. 3. The learned trial Court, while rejecng the applicaon, has re- corded that both the pronote and receipt were part of the record from the very incepon of the proceedings. The defendant had ample opportunity to scrunize these documents and raise all available pleas at the me of filing YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.08 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2428-2026 [2] of the wri:en statement. The applicaon, having been filed at a highly be- lated stage a@er closure of the plainff’s evidence, was held to be lacking in due diligence. 4. Learned counsel for the peoner has argued that mere delay cannot be a ground to decline amendment and has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh, 2009 (4) SCC (Civil) 294, to contend that even a belated amendment ought to be allowed, if it is necessary for determining the real controversy between the pares. 5. The contenon, though a:racve at first blush, does not merit acceptance in the facts of the present case. 6. It is trite that the object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to enable the Court to determine the real quesons in controversy between the pares. However, by way of the proviso inserted by the Amendment Act of 2002, a clear legislave restricon has been placed on the power of the Court to al- low amendments a@er commencement of trial. Once the trial has com- menced, an amendment can be permi:ed only if the Court is sasfied that despite exercise of due diligence, the party could not have raised the ma:er before the commencement of trial. 7. In the present case, the documents in queson, namely the pronote and receipt, form the very foundaon of the suit and were admit- tedly on record at the me when the wri:en statement was filed. The pleas now sought to be introduced are neither based on any subsequent event nor on any fact which came to the knowledge of the defendant at a later stage. Rather, these are intrinsic features of the documents themselves, which were available for inspecon from the outset. 8. The defendant has failed to furnish any explanaon, much less a sasfactory one, as to why these objecons could not be raised earlier despite due diligence. The absence of the scribe’s signature or the alleged lack of date on the receipt are ma:ers, which could have been noced on a YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.08 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2428-2026 [3] bare perusal of the documents. The requirement of “due diligence” under the proviso is not an empty formality; it casts a burden upon the party seek- ing amendment to convince that the plea could not have been raised earlier despite reasonable care and cauon. This burden remains wholly undis- charged. 9. Further, permiLng such an amendment at the stage when the plainff has already concluded his evidence would result in serious preju- dice to the plainff and would, in effect, reopen the enre trial. The nature of the amendment sought is not merely clarificatory but introduces a new line of defence aimed at impeaching the very validity of the foundaonal documents, which would necessitate fresh evidence and potenally a de novo trial. Such a course is clearly impermissible in view of the se:led prin- ciples governing amendments a@er commencement of trial. 10. The reliance placed on Surender Kumar Sharma (supra) is mis- placed, as the said judgment does not dilute the mandatory requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The law laid down therein applies to situaons, where the amendment is essenal for determ- ining the real controversy and where the party sasfies the Court regarding due diligence. In the absence of such sasfacon, the amendment cannot be allowed merely on the ground that it may assist in adjudicaon. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has exercised its discreon judiciously and in consonance with the statutory mandate. No illegality or perversity can be a:ributed to the im- pugned order warranng interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdicon. 12. Consequently, finding no merit in the present peon, the same is dismissed. 07.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.08 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document