IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 167 CR-5118-2026 Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Sunil . . . . Petitioner Vs. Narendran Radhamani Educational Society . . . . Respondent **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Arun Luthra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Petitioner herein is the defendant in Civil Suit No.CS-793-2017 titled ‘Narendran Radgamani Educational Society Vs. Sunil etc.’, pending before learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sonipat. He is aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P1) passed by the trial Court, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement, has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the impugned order. 3. The case set up in the amendment application is that while filing the written statement on 13.11.2017, the petitioner inadvertently omitted to plead that the plaintiff had executed an agreement dated 31.07.2014 in favour of his real sister, Smt. Sunita, and had delivered possession of the suit property to her. It is pleaded that Smt. Sunita has remained in possession ever since and that the petitioner has merely been managing the property on her behalf. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that amendments of written statements are to be considered liberally and that the proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties, as it pertains to the very basis of the petitioner's possession. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5118-2026 2026:PHHC: 094872 5. The contention, however, does not merit acceptance. 6. The record reveals that the suit was instituted in the year 2017 and the written statement was filed on 13.11.2017. The application seeking amendment came to be filed only after nearly seven years. It is also not disputed that issues had already been framed and the plaintiff had concluded his entire evidence by the time the application was moved. Consequently, the trial had not merely commenced but had substantially progressed. 7. Once the trial has commenced, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC comes into operation. The proviso places a clear embargo on allowing amendments after commencement of trial unless the Court is satisfied that, despite exercise of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The burden to establish due diligence squarely rests upon the party seeking amendment. 8. In the present case, the very foundation of the proposed amendment is the alleged agreement dated 31.07.2014 executed in favour of the petitioner's real sister and the delivery of possession pursuant thereto. According to the petitioner himself, he has been managing the suit property on behalf of his sister ever since. The facts sought to be introduced are, therefore, neither subsequent events nor facts discovered during the pendency of the suit. They were admittedly within the personal knowledge of the petitioner even before the written statement was filed in the year 2017. 9. Except for a bald plea that the said facts could not be pleaded due to inadvertence, no explanation whatsoever has been furnished to demonstrate the exercise of due diligence as contemplated by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Mere inadvertence, oversight or negligence cannot be equated with due diligence, nor can it furnish a valid ground for permitting a belated amendment after the commencement of trial. Acceptance of such a plea would virtually render the proviso otiose. 10. Though it is true that amendments of written statements are generally viewed more liberally than amendments of plaints, such liberal VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5118-2026 2026:PHHC: 094872 approach cannot override the statutory mandate contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Once the conditions prescribed by the proviso are not satisfied, the Court lacks justification to permit the amendment merely because it is sought in a written statement. 11. The learned Trial Court has considered the relevant facts, correctly applied the statutory requirements and declined the amendment by recording cogent reasons. No jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity has been pointed out which may warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 12. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document