Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of plaint — Post-trial amendment — Change of genealogy and source of title — Due diligence — Where the plaintiffs, after commencement of trial and completion of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, seek amendment of plaint to substitute an entirely new genealogy and alter the flow and source of title, such amendment cannot be permitted in the absence of pleading and proof of due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of plaint — Post-trial amendment — Change of genealogy and source of title — Due diligence —
Where the plaintiffs, after commencement of trial and completion of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, seek amendment of plaint to substitute an entirely new genealogy and alter the flow and source of title, such amendment cannot be permitted in the absence of pleading and proof of due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Withdrawal of admissions — Introduction of inconsistent case —
An amendment which seeks to delete earlier pleadings, withdraw admissions, and substitute a fresh and inconsistent version of genealogy and title, amounts to changing the fundamental character and nature of the suit and is impermissible.

Pleadings — Amendment — Nature of suit —
Amendment which transforms the suit from one based on a registered sale deed into one founded on ancestral joint family property and inheritance alters the basic structure of the suit and cannot be allowed.

Supervisory Jurisdiction — Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Scope —
Where the Trial Court has exercised discretion in accordance with settled principles governing amendment of pleadings, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

CASE FACTS

• The original plaintiff filed O.S.No.167 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, seeking declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of Ac.2.47 cents in Sy.No.330 of Vemuru Village.

• The suit was founded on a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1976 and a specific genealogy pleaded in the plaint.

• During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs earlier filed I.A.No.630 of 2017, seeking amendment of genealogy, which was allowed on 13.11.2017.

• After allowing the said amendment, the plaintiffs examined P.Ws.1 to 3, who were subjected to detailed cross-examination.

• Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.621 of 2018 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to once again amend the plaint by deleting the existing genealogy and substituting a third and entirely different genealogy, allegedly based on newly obtained public documents.

• The Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.621 of 2018 by order dated 04.03.2024.

• Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

ANALYSIS

• The High Court examined the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, including the proviso governing post-trial amendments.

• The Court noted that:

  • The plaintiffs had already amended the genealogy once in 2017.

  • Evidence was led and cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 was completed based on the amended pleadings.

  • The proposed amendment sought to introduce a third genealogy, contradicting both the original and earlier amended pleadings.

• The Court found that by the proposed amendment:

  • The plaintiffs attempted to alter the entire flow of title and source of ownership.

  • The nature of the suit would change from one based on a sale deed to one based on ancestral inheritance.

  • Earlier admissions and contradictions brought out in cross-examination were sought to be neutralised.

• The High Court relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
  Rajkumar Guruwara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited,
  Asian Hotels (North) Limited v. Alok Kumar Lodha,
  M. Revanna v. Anjanamma, and
  Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
  reiterating that amendments which change the nature of the suit or withdraw admissions cannot be permitted, particularly after commencement of trial.

• The Court further held that the plaintiffs failed to plead or establish that, in spite of due diligence, they could not have raised the proposed amendment earlier, either at the time of filing the suit or when filing the earlier amendment application in 2017.

• The contention that the plaintiffs came to know the “correct genealogy” only after obtaining documents from public authorities was found to be untenable.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. An amendment sought after commencement of trial and completion of cross-examination, which introduces a new and inconsistent genealogy and alters the source and flow of title, is barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC in the absence of due diligence.

2. An amendment that withdraws earlier admissions and reconstructs the plaintiff’s case so as to overcome contradictions elicited in evidence cannot be permitted.

3. Change in the basic nature and foundation of the suit disentitles the party from relief of amendment of pleadings.

4. When the Trial Court exercises discretion in conformity with settled principles governing amendment of pleadings, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted.

---

Result:
Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
No order as to costs.
All pending miscellaneous applications dismissed.