The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to amend a plaint in a suit pending for three decades, terming the move as an attempt to “protract the proceedings.” Justice Girish Kathpalia upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the amendment application filed at the stage of rebuttal final arguments, observing that reopening the trial at such a late stage would constitute the “worst travesty of justice.”
The Court also took strong exception to the petitioner’s attempt to attribute the delay to his former lawyer, stating, “This practice of throwing trash on the previous counsel must be deprecated.”
Case Background
The matter, titled Bhoop Singh Gola v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. (CM(M) 2208/2025), involves a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) approximately 30 years ago to restrain the respondents from demolishing the subject property.
The suit had reached the “fag end” of proceedings, with both parties having concluded final arguments and the matter listed for rebuttal final arguments. At this stage, the petitioner filed an application seeking to amend seven paragraphs of the plaint and the prayer clause by inserting the expression “defendant no.2.”
The learned Trial Court dismissed this application vide order dated 15.10.2025. Challenging this dismissal, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the impugned order was liable to be set aside on the following grounds:
- Prejudice: Disallowing the amendment would cause prejudice to the plaintiff, leaving the suit incompletely adjudicated.
- Residuary Prayer: It was argued that the “residuary part of the prayer clause of the plaint takes care of the facts now sought to be inserted.”
- Counsel’s Error: To explain the delay, the petitioner claimed that the “erstwhile counsel inadvertently did not raise the grounds now sought to be raised.”
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Kathpalia, upon hearing the submissions, found no merit in the petition and declined to issue notice to the respondents. The Court’s analysis focused on the applicability of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which restricts amendments after the commencement of the trial unless the party proves that the new facts could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence.
The Court observed that the facts sought to be pleaded were admittedly within the petitioner’s knowledge, as “Defendant no.2 was always a party to the suit.”
The Court noted three critical factors weighing against the petitioner:
- Prior Knowledge: The petitioner was always aware of the role of defendant no.2, who was not being impleaded for the first time.
- Previous Dismissal: A prior application for amendment, which did not mention the current facts, was dismissed by the Trial Court on 24.07.2025. That order had attained finality as it was not challenged.
- Impact on Trial: Allowing an amendment in a 30-year-old suit would require granting the defendant an opportunity to amend pleadings, leading to a “reopening of the trial.”
Addressing the consequence of allowing such a belated plea, Justice Kathpalia remarked:
“That would be the worst travesty of justice by dragging on such old suit.”
On Blaming Counsel
The High Court explicitly rejected the petitioner’s defense that the previous counsel was at fault for not raising the grounds earlier. Terming the explanation “completely casual and vague,” the Court observed:
“This practice of throwing trash on the previous counsel must be deprecated. The erstwhile counsel would not even be aware that he is being maligned, that too without being heard.”
Decision
The Court concluded that the petitioner was attempting to “somehow protract the proceedings and ensure that the suit does not get decided despite its pendency of 30 years.”
Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court’s order dated 15.10.2025, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Justice Kathpalia held:
“The petition is not just devoid of merit but also appears to be totally frivolous.”
The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within two weeks. This cost is in addition to the costs already imposed by the Trial Court in the impugned order.
