Delhi High Court on Amendment of Written Statement: Lack of Diligence Bars Amendment after Trial Commencement.

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to permit amendment of a written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), holding that the petitioner had failed to show due diligence as required by the proviso to the Rule. The Court reiterated that once the trial has commenced, an amendment can only be allowed if the applicant demonstrates that despite due diligence, the plea could not have been raised earlier. The Court found that the petitioner’s explanation — lack of knowledge due to her husband’s incarceration — did not justify the delay, as she had ample opportunity after his release to gather necessary facts.

1. The petitioner/defendant sought amendment of her written statement in a civil suit filed by Dynamik Developers Pvt. Ltd., contending that she had already paid the entire suit amount but could not mention it earlier as her husband, who managed the transactions, was in jail at the time of filing.
2. The trial court rejected her application under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, noting that the trial had already commenced and no sufficient cause for the delay was shown.
3. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside the trial court’s order dated 23.09.2025.

1. The Court noted that under the 2002 amendment to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, amendments cannot be allowed once the trial begins unless due diligence is proved.
2. It observed that the petitioner neither pleaded in her written statement that she was a homemaker unaware of the transactions nor produced any evidence that her husband was in jail at that time.
3. Even if her claim was accepted, her husband’s release on 5 October 2024 and the trial’s commencement on 29 March 2025 left sufficient time to verify facts and file for amendment — which she failed to do.
4. The Court held that such inaction clearly reflected lack of diligence and therefore attracted the statutory bar.

The High Court upheld the trial court’s order, dismissing the petition and accompanying application. It concluded that the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, rendering the amendment impermissible after commencement of trial.

1. Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Amendment of pleadings and the limitation imposed after trial commencement.
2. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC (2002 Amendment) – Bar on amendment once trial commences unless due diligence is demonstrated.

Citation: 2025:DHC:110605

Case: Farhana Sami v. Dynamik Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Girish Kathpalia

Date of Decision: 6 November 2025

Case No.: CM(M) 2105/2025 & CM APPL. 68903/2025