Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Amendment of Written Statement After Commencement of Trial.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant challenging the trial court’s order refusing to allow an amendment of the written statement after commencement of trial. The Court held that once the trial begins, the scope for amending pleadings is extremely limited under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and such amendments can only be permitted if, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. The Court found that the petitioners sought to introduce new facts and retract admissions, not merely legal pleas, and therefore upheld the trial court’s order, imposing costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioners.

Background:

• The petitioners, legal representatives of the deceased defendant, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the trial court’s order dated 15 October 2019, which had dismissed their application for amendment of the written statement.

• The trial court had refused the amendment primarily because the trial had already commenced, and the proposed amendments went beyond legal pleas to include new facts and changes in earlier admissions.

• The petitioners contended that they merely intended to add legal objections, which could be raised at any stage, and that the trial court had taken a hyper-technical view.

• The respondent, represented by Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, opposed the petition, arguing that the proposed amendments introduced new factual assertions—such as claims about construction of the house and rights of predecessors—which were never pleaded earlier.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court referred to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which allows amendments of pleadings at any stage but prohibits such amendments after commencement of trial unless the party, despite due diligence, could not have raised the matter earlier.

• The Court noted that the trial had already commenced before the amendment application was filed.

• It held that the amendments proposed were not confined to legal objections but sought to add new facts—for instance, that the permanent structure was built by the petitioners’ predecessors, thereby creating rights that could not be revoked.

• These facts were clearly within the petitioners’ knowledge from the beginning, and no explanation of due diligence was offered.

• The Court observed that even if the plea was legal, it could have been raised earlier, and therefore, the bar under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC applied squarely.

Decision:

• The Court held that the trial court had correctly dismissed the amendment application in accordance with the CPC.

• It found the present petition frivolous and devoid of merit.

• The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹10,000, to be paid to the legal representatives of the respondent (through LR No. 1 of the deceased respondent) within one week.

Legal Principles Discussed:

• Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment of pleadings; restriction post-commencement of trial.

• Doctrine of Due Diligence – A party must show that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite reasonable effort.

• Retraction of Admissions – Amendments seeking to withdraw earlier admissions or introduce new facts not previously pleaded are impermissible after trial begins.

Outcome:

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s refusal to allow amendments after the trial had begun and imposed monetary costs for filing a frivolous petition. The ruling reinforces judicial caution in permitting amendments that alter the nature of the defence or introduce new factual assertions once evidence has commenced.

Case: Shri Anil Gupta @ Pulpul & Ors. v. Shri Ram Gupta

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia

Date of Decision: 31 October 2025

Case No.: CM(M) 448/2022 & CM APPL. 23046/2022 (Stay)