The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition challenging a trial court’s refusal to allow an amendment to a written statement in a property dispute. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta upheld the trial court’s order, observing that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence as required under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and that the proposed amendments were “totally inconsistent” with the original defense.
Background of the Case
The legal battle originated from Civil Suit No. 36/2017, filed by the respondent, Smt. Hazra, against the petitioner, Mohd. Asif. The respondent sought possession, recovery of rent, and damages regarding a shop on the ground floor of property No. 0-32, Sunder Nagri, Delhi. In her plaint, she asserted ownership of the property and stated that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant.
In his original written statement, the petitioner denied the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, claiming he had been in possession for many years and had constructed the shop using his own funds. However, in 2022—five years after the suit was instituted and after the respondent’s evidence was concluded—the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend his written statement to claim ownership of the property via a purchase from one Noor Biwi on May 7, 1985.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court’s dismissal of the amendment application was based on “surmises and conjectures.” They contended that the amendments were necessary for the “effective adjudication of controversy” and to “avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings.” To explain the delay, the petitioner cited a head injury suffered by his father which resulted in memory loss. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97.
Conversely, the respondent’s counsel argued that the trial court’s order was well-reasoned and that the amendment application was a strategy to “delay the trial.” They maintained that there was no illegality in the impugned order.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which restricts amendments after the commencement of trial unless the party shows that “in spite of due diligence,” the matter could not have been raised earlier.
The Court highlighted that the facts the petitioner sought to introduce—specifically the purchase of the property in 1985—were “well within his knowledge at the time of the filing of the written statement.” It further noted that a previous application to bring the same 1985 documents on record had already been dismissed by the trial court in December 2018. Despite this, the petitioner waited approximately four years before filing the present amendment application.
Citing the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2024) 3 SCC 705 titled as Basavaraj vs Indira & Ors, the Court noted:
“The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
Regarding the nature of the amendment, the Court observed:
“This plea is totally inconsistent to the plea taken earlier in the written statement and allowing this plea would cause prejudice to the respondent.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that the petitioner was not “due diligent,” noting that the application was filed at a stage when the case was already fixed for the petitioner’s own evidence. Finding no “infirmity or illegality” in the trial court’s order dated March 22, 2023, the Court dismissed the petition along with any pending applications.
Case Details Block
- Case Title: Mohd. Asif vs Smt. Hazra
- Case No.: CM(M) 656/2023 & CM APPL. 20448/2023
- Bench: Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
- Date of Decision: 28th April, 2026
