The High Court at Allahabad has clarified the scope of amending grounds in revisional proceedings, holding that while the “due diligence” requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) cannot be applied mechanically to revisions, parties cannot be permitted to introduce fresh factual assertions or withdraw binding admissions at the revisional stage.
The single-judge bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, while dismissing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, observed that a revisional court exercises a limited jurisdiction to examine the legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness of an impugned order based on the existing record. The Court held that since no evidence is recorded and the revisional court does not adjudicate disputed questions of fact de novo, the jurisdiction is strictly confined to the scrutiny of the record of the subordinate court and cannot be used to fundamentally alter the nature of a defence.
Background of the Case
The case originated from SCC Suit No. 190 of 2013, filed by the respondent-landlord (Smt. Shashikala Pandey) seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent from the petitioner-tenant (Smt. Munni Devi). The Court of Small Causes decreed the suit on February 29, 2024.
The petitioner challenged this in Civil Revision No. 130 of 2024. After several rounds of litigation, including two remands by the High Court, the petitioner moved an application (Paper No. 29-G) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the grounds of revision. The petitioner sought to introduce four new grounds (A, B, C, and D) which included:
- Denying the landlord-tenant relationship and ownership.
- Challenging the validity of the tenancy termination notice.
- Asserting that the defendant had constructed the structure herself.
- Invoking Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act regarding questions of title.
The revisional court rejected this application on July 16, 2025, primarily on the grounds of lack of “due diligence” under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner argued that the revisional court erred in applying the “due diligence” rigour, which is intended for trials, to revisional proceedings.
Conversely, the respondent-landlord contended that the amendments were “wholly belated” and contrary to clear admissions made by the petitioner in her written statement. It was urged that the petitioner was attempting to “withdraw binding admissions and to introduce entirely new and inconsistent pleas,” which would cause serious prejudice.
Court’s Analysis
The Court delved into the structural differences between a trial and revisional proceedings. It noted that Order VI Rule 17 CPC allows for the amendment of “pleadings” (plaint and written statement), and its proviso restricts such amendments after the “commencement of trial” unless due diligence is shown.
On the Applicability of the Proviso to Revisions: The Court observed that “revisional proceedings do not involve a trial” in the sense of recording evidence or adjudicating facts de novo. Therefore:
“The literal application of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which is predicated upon commencement of trial, does not fit into the scheme of revisional jurisdiction.”
On Raising Legal vs. Factual Grounds: The Court emphasized that while pure questions of law arising from the existing record may be raised at any stage, the same does not apply to new factual pleas:
“A clear distinction must be maintained between a ‘ground’ which is purely legal and arises from the existing record, and a ‘plea’ which introduces new factual assertions requiring investigation or evidence.”
On the Sanctity of Admissions: The Court held that admissions in pleadings constitute “substantive evidence” and confer a vested advantage on the opposite party. It stated:
“Permitting withdrawal or dilution of such admissions at a subsequent stage… would not only unsettle the basis of the proceedings but also cause serious prejudice to the opposite party.”
Decision
The High Court found that the petitioner’s proposed amendments were not pure legal grounds but sought to “fundamentally alter the nature of the defence” by introducing factual assertions inconsistent with earlier admissions of tenancy.
The Court concluded that although the revisional court’s reliance on the “due diligence” proviso was not “strictly accurate in law,” the ultimate rejection of the amendment was justified on merits.
“The amendment sought by the petitioner is in substance an attempt to introduce new factual pleas, withdraw admissions and reopen concluded issues, which is impermissible in law.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, though the petitioner remains at liberty to urge legal grounds already available on the existing record during the pending revision.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Munni Devi vs. Smt. Shashikala Pandey
- Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 1505 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- Date: March 20, 2026
