Due diligence test in CPC not always a bar for amendment of pleadings after trial starts: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently clarified that in certain scenarios, civil courts can allow parties to amend their pleadings after a civil trial starts, even if they fail a "due diligence" test provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The "due diligence test" is laid down in a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The said rule empowers civil courts to allow parties to amend pleadings in a civil case at any stage of the trial.

The proviso to the said rule adds that no such amendment application shall be allowed after a trial starts unless the court finds that "in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

The High Court has held that this proviso or the "due diligence test" is not universally applicable to all amendment applications filed after the start of trial.

"The relevance of 'due diligence test' is dependent on the nature of the amendment sought and other attending circumstances ...  Merely because the trial has commenced and the party seeking amendment failed the due diligence test cannot be the sole criterion to reject the application seeking amendment," the ruling passed by Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde last month said.

The Court explained that a blanket application of the "due diligence" test could defeat the object of Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, which is (a) to prevent the multiplicity of litigation; and (b) to determine the real controversy between parties.

The Court noted that the proviso to this rule was also brought about only to ensure that parties do not unnecessarily delay trial proceedings by filing one amendment application after another.

This does not mean that the civil court's powers to allow such amendments to pleadings have been taken away merely because a party fails the "due diligence test", the High Court opined.

The Court also outlined broad categories of amendment applications that can be allowed even if they are filed after the commencement of trial, without following the "due diligence test." These include applications to:

(a) correct typographical errors in the dates of events, documents, etc.;

(b) correct property number, extent, location or discrepancies in the boundary or any other misdescription of the property;

(c) insert events and developments that have taken place post-filing of the suit and which have a bearing on the final decision;

(d) incorporate a prayer owing to a subsequent event that has taken place during the pendency of the suit, keeping open the question of limitation;

(e) add a few additional facts or furnish better particulars to the facts already pleaded;

(f) add facts in support of the relief already claimed;

(g) seek relief in the alternative, which is in the nature of a lesser relief than the one already claimed;

(h) seek additional relief or relief ancillary to the main relief when the relief sought by way of amendment is available based on the pleadings already made.

The Court pointed out that even if it is presumed that a civil court's power to allow the amendment of pleadings is restricted by the proviso in Rule 17 of Order VI, it could still invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC to allow an amendment application.

"In appropriate cases, even if due diligence test is not satisfied, the Court’s power to permit amendment of pleadings is not taken away. In deserving cases, the Court may even resort to its inherent power (though not expressly invoked by the party) to permit amendment on such terms to do complete justice," the Court concluded.

It also criticised the trend of civil courts rejecting amendment applications after trial starts, sometimes on apprehensions of minor delays that may arise otherwise.

"The Court sitting in this jurisdiction has noticed that many times, Trial Courts have been dismissing applications as if the Courts hardly have any power to permit amendments after the commencement of trial. Sometimes the amendments are not allowed when such applications are filed at the stage of final arguments, probably for the reason that the case may not be available for early disposal if amendments are permitted. Such an approach is not desirable," the High Court said.

Any negative outcome that could arise from allowing such amendment applications could be tackled by imposing proper conditions, the High Court said.

"If a proposed amendment requires to be permitted keeping in mind the law governing amendment, the same should be permitted notwithstanding the shortterm consequence of a little delay or inconvenience to the opposing party. Such aspects can be taken care of by passing suitable orders on costs and putting the party seeking amendment on other suitable terms," the High Court said.

The Court made the observation in a case concerning a dispute over the validity of a sale deed concerning certain land.

The parties who challenged the sale deed by filing a suit in 2015, later sought to file an amendment application in 2024 to add to their pleadings. The amendment application said that they were dispossessed of the land under dispute in 2022.

Their legal opponents/ defendants opposed this amendment. They argued that the plaintiffs, during cross-examination, had claimed that they were dispossessed in 2014, prior to the filing of their suit. They questioned why this alleged dispossession was not challenged earlier and contended that they could not raise it now.

The trial court in 2025 dismissed the plaintiffs' amendment application. Among other reasons, the trial court noted that the plaintiffs failed the 'due diligence' test (or, that they failed to show that they could not raise the dispossession challenge before the trial started, despite exercising due diligence).

Aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached the High Court. The High Court allowed the amendment of their plea on noting that the amendment raises aspects that have to be adjudicated to decide the real controversy between the parties.

The Court added that the plaintiffs have to pay ₹7,000 as a condition for amending their plea.

Advocates Pranav Badagi and SB Hebbali appeared for the petitioners/ plaintiffs.

Advocate Maqboolhamed M Patil appeared for a respondent/ defendant.

[Read Order]