Order VI Rule 17 of CPC

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde of the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) in the case of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr. v/s Bandenawaz and Others (2025) held that amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is permitted even after commencement of trial despite non-fulfilment of due diligence test, clarifying that the test does not have universal application. 

What was the Background of Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr. v/s Bandenawaz and Others (2025) Case? 

• The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a suit seeking declaration that a sale deed dated 24.04.2009 executed by petitioner no. 1's father in favor of the defendants be cancelled. 
• They also sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession of the property. 
• After evidence of Plaintiff's witness no. 2, the petitioners filed an application to amend the plaint approximately 10 years after the presentation of the original plaint and after commencement of trial. 
• The amendment sought to incorporate a plea that they were dispossessed from the property on 29.03.2022 during the pendency of the suit. 
• The petitioners also sought to include a prayer for possession in the amended plaint. 
• The Trial Court dismissed the amendment application on the ground that petitioners did not satisfy the due diligence test required under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 
• The Trial Court noted that the plea was filed 10 years after institution of the suit and was therefore belated. 
• The petitioners challenged the Trial Court's order before the Karnataka High Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

Main Holding: 

• The due diligence test under Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not have universal application to every amendment sought after trial commencement. 
• Whether to allow amendment post-trial should depend on the "nature of amendment sought" rather than rigidly applying the due diligence test. 

Key Principles: 

• Purpose of 2002 Amendment:  
  • The proviso was introduced to prevent misuse and delay tactics. 
  • However, liberal construction still applies to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 
• "At Any Stage of Proceedings":  
  • Parliament retained this phrase in 2002, indicating flexibility. 
  • If rigid tests were intended for all post-trial amendments, this phrase would likely have been removed. 
• Amendments Allowed Without Due Diligence Test:  
  • Correcting typographical errors in dates, documents. 
  • Correcting property details or boundary descriptions. 
  • Inserting post-filing events affecting the decision. 
  • Adding prayers based on subsequent events during suit pendency. 
  • Adding facts supporting already claimed relief. 
  • Seeking alternative or lesser relief. 
  • Seeking ancillary relief based on existing pleadings. 
• Application to This Case:  
  • The 10-year gap alone cannot justify dismissal. 
  • Application was within limitation under Articles 64/65 of Limitation Act. 
  • Not every amendment nullifying an admission is impermissible. 
  • Trial Court erred by focusing on the time gap rather than nature of amendment.

What is Order VI of CPC? 

• Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with pleadings in civil cases. Pleadings refer to the plaint filed by the plaintiff and the written statement filed by the defendant in response to the plaint. 
• Pleadings are written statements that each party files to inform the court and the opposite party about their case and the facts they intend to prove during trial. These documents must contain all material facts and necessary details so that each side knows what case they need to answer. 
• It is a fundamental requirement that all material facts and necessary particulars must be clearly stated in the pleadings, and courts cannot decide cases based on facts or grounds that are not mentioned in the pleadings. 

What is Rule 17 of Order VI? 

• Rule 17 of Order VI deals specifically with the amendment or alteration of pleadings after they have been filed in court. 
• This rule grants discretionary power to the court to allow either party to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided such amendment is just and necessary for determining the real issues in dispute between the parties. 
• The court may permit amendments to pleadings in such manner and on such terms as it considers fair, ensuring that all necessary amendments are made to resolve the actual questions of controversy between the parties. 
• However, there is an important restriction that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court is satisfied that despite exercising due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the trial began. 
• Due diligence means that the party must show they made reasonable efforts and conducted proper investigation but still could not have discovered or raised the matter earlier through no fault of their own. 
• The primary objective of Rule 17 is to reduce litigation, minimize delays in court proceedings, and prevent the need for multiple separate lawsuits by allowing parties to properly present their complete case in one proceeding. 
• This rule balances the need for finality in legal proceedings with the principle that justice should be done based on complete facts and real issues between the parties.