The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition challenging a trial court’s order that refused an amendment to a Written Statement sought after the commencement of the trial. Justice Girish Kathpalia held that once the trial has commenced, the “core test” for permitting an amendment under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is “due diligence,” which the petitioner failed to demonstrate.
Background of the Case
The petition, titled Om Prakash vs. Brahm Singh, was filed challenging the order dated November 19, 2025, passed by the learned trial court. The trial court had dismissed the petitioner’s (defendant’s) application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend his Written Statement.
The application for amendment was moved at the stage of recording the defendant’s evidence, after the plaintiff’s evidence had already been concluded with the examination of six witnesses. The petitioner sought to incorporate references to two writ petitions filed before the High Court. The petitioner contended that since these writ petitions were filed subsequent to the filing of his original Written Statement, he could not have incorporated them earlier.
The relevant chronology of events noted by the Court is as follows:
- Written Statement filed: August 4, 2023
- Issues framed: February 1, 2024
- Trial commenced: April 9, 2024
- Writ Petitions filed: December 19, 2023, and March 15, 2024
- Amendment Application filed: July 7, 2025
The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the amendment was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Arguments
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was “not sustainable in the eyes of law.” It was submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the two writ petitions in question. Consequently, the counsel contended that the trial court had “wrongly overstretched the meaning of the expression ‘due diligence'” used in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
The petitioner’s counsel further asserted that a defendant “cannot be expected to keep checking the institution of all legal proceedings related to the dispute pending trial.”
Court’s Analysis
Justice Girish Kathpalia analyzed the dates and observed that while the writ petitions were indeed filed after the Written Statement, they were instituted prior to the commencement of the trial. The Court noted that the first writ petition was filed before the framing of issues, and the second was filed prior to the commencement of the trial on April 9, 2024.
The Court emphasized that while the petitioner could not have mentioned the writ petitions in the originally filed Written Statement, the issue remained subject to the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The proviso mandates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court concludes that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the trial began.
Referring to a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s GS Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2025:DHC:10841), Justice Kathpalia reiterated that “once trial has commenced, due diligence is the core test for permitting an amendment.”
Quoting the precedent, the Court observed:
“The proviso is a significant part of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as it narrows down the scope of amendment of pleadings once trial has commenced… Once trial has commenced, the amendment sought has to be tested on the anvil of due diligence by examining as to whether the amendment sought pertains to an issue which could be raised prior to commencement of trial, had the amendment applicant been duly diligent…”
The Court found that the petitioner failed to disclose specifically when and how he came to know about the institution of the two writ petitions. The judgment noted:
“There is nothing on record to infer that in spite of due diligence, the petitioner/defendant could not have sought amendment of the Written Statement till evidence of the plaintiff got concluded. There is not even a whisper that in spite of due diligence, the petitioner/defendant could not have raised the matter prior to commencement of trial.”
The Court further reasoned that if the petitioner had learned of the writ petitions soon after the filing of the Written Statement but waited until the stage of defendant’s evidence to apply for amendment, “the lack of due diligence would be writ large.”
Additionally, the Court highlighted the “serious prejudice” that allowing the amendment would cause to the respondent (plaintiff). Since the plaintiff had already led their entire evidence, permitting the amendment would potentially require a fresh opportunity for replication, amendment of issues, and further evidence, leading to the “protraction of the trial.”
Decision
Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the petition and the pending applications.
Case Details
- Case Title: Om Prakash vs. Brahm Singh
- Case Number: CM(M) 2416/2025
- Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia
