ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Delay and laches – Amendment after 12 years – Absence of due diligence When written statement denying title and possession was filed in the year 2010, and amendment is sought only in 2022, the petitioners fail to satisfy the requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. (Paras 12, 26)

Friday, January 9, 2026

Delay and laches – Amendment after 12 years – Absence of due diligence When written statement denying title and possession was filed in the year 2010, and amendment is sought only in 2022, the petitioners fail to satisfy the requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. (Paras 12, 26)

advocatemmmohan

1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint – Post-trial stage

After commencement of trial, amendment of pleadings cannot be permitted unless the applicant establishes that in spite of due diligence, the matter could not have been raised prior to commencement of trial.
(Paras 12, 19–21, 26)

2. Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment introducing new cause of action – Not permissible

An amendment which introduces new reliefs, a fresh cause of action, and changes the nature and structure of the suit, especially at the fag end of trial, is impermissible.
(Paras 23, 25, 27)

3. Amendment of plaint – Declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction

Where the original suit is only for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction, amendment seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mandatory injunction amounts to setting up an entirely new case.
(Paras 23–25)

4. Delay and laches – Amendment after 12 years – Absence of due diligence

When written statement denying title and possession was filed in the year 2010, and amendment is sought only in 2022, the petitioners fail to satisfy the requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
(Paras 12, 26)

5. Amendment – Post-evidence stage – Fag end of trial

At a stage where plaintiffs’ evidence is completed and the suit is posted for cross-examination of D.W.1, permitting amendment would derail the trial and cause undue delay.
(Paras 25–26)

6. Amendment – Limitation – Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963

Amendment seeking declaration and recovery of possession based on adverse possession, after denial of title in 2010 and lapse of more than 12 years, would defeat limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
(Paras 27)

7. Amendment – No prima facie material – Alleged dispossession

Where no oral or documentary evidence is produced to prima facie establish alleged dispossession or illegal occupation, amendment cannot be permitted on bald pleadings.
(Paras 23–24)

8. Amendment – Separate cause of action – Separate remedy

Alleged subsequent trespass or dispossession gives rise to a fresh and independent cause of action, which cannot be merged into an old pending suit by way of amendment.
(Para 25)

9. Article 227 – Scope of interference

When the Trial Court has exercised discretion judiciously under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(Para 28)

10. Multiple suits – Repetitive amendments – Abuse of process

Filing similar amendment applications in multiple suits without prima facie material, at an advanced stage of trial, would result in undue delay and cannot be encouraged.
(Paras 26)

ANALYSIS

Nature of the Proceedings

The three Civil Revision Petitions were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 10.03.2023 dismissing applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in:

O.S.No.227 of 2014
O.S.No.264 of 2014
O.S.No.201 of 2014

All suits were pending before the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur.

Original Suits and Reliefs

The suits were originally instituted for:

Cancellation of registered sale deeds, and
Permanent injunction.

The written statement of Respondent No.8 / Defendant No.8, filed on 11.11.2010, specifically denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs.

Nature of Proposed Amendments

By the interlocutory applications filed in 2022, the petitioners sought to introduce:

Declaration of title,
Recovery of possession, and
Mandatory injunction for removal of constructions,
based on alleged dispossession in August 2021 and on adverse possession.

Reasoning of the High Court

Delay of 12 years:
The Court found that denial of possession was known in 2010 itself, yet no amendment was sought until 2022. (Paras 12, 26)
Change in nature of suit:
The proposed amendment would convert a suit for cancellation and injunction into one for declaration, possession, and mandatory injunction. (Paras 23, 25)
Fresh cause of action:
Alleged dispossession in 2021 constitutes a new cause of action requiring independent proceedings. (Para 25)
Stage of trial:
Plaintiffs’ evidence was already completed, and the matter was posted for cross-examination of D.W.1. (Para 25)
Limitation bar:
The Court held that the amendment was an attempt to overcome limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (Para 27)
Absence of prima facie evidence:
No documents, sale deeds, or third-party affidavits were produced to substantiate alleged dispossession or constructions. (Paras 23–24)

Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction

The High Court held that the Trial Court exercised discretion properly and committed no jurisdictional error, warranting no interference under Article 227. (Para 28)

RATIO DECIDENDI

An amendment of plaint sought after commencement of trial, introducing new reliefs such as declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction, based on a fresh cause of action and filed after long delay without proof of due diligence, is barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC; such amendment, particularly at the fag end of trial and when limitation has accrued, cannot be permitted, and refusal thereof does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN