Gauhati HC Rejects Amendment of Pleadings After Commencement of Trial for Lack of Due Diligence

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a party's failure to demonstrate due diligence acts as a bar to amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. The Court held that the mandatory 'shall' in the proviso to Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 leaves no room for judicial discretion when a litigant seeks amendments based on information known long before the application. 

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita was hearing a challenge against a trial court order that had dismissed an application for amendment filed more than a year after the relevant facts came to the light for the plaintiff. The petitioner sought to challenge a sale deed and correct typographical errors in the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 

Due Diligence 

The Gauhati High Court observed that while Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr. ( "(2022) 16 SCC 1": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 652) advocates for a liberal approach to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, such liberality cannot override the express statutory prohibition in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Bench noted that the petitioner became aware of the contested sale deed on November 28, 2022, yet waited until February 2024 to file the amendment application. 

The Gauhati High Court noted that the plaintiff did not act diligently, or he could seek the amendment of pleadings before commencement of trial in the title suit. The Bench clarified that "the embargo in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is an absolute embargo due to the use of the word 'shall' in the same, and if the Court comes to a conclusion that there was lack of due diligence in seeking the amendment of the pleading by the applicant, it has no other option but to reject such a prayer." 

The Gauhati High Court further clarified that for a court to exercise its jurisdiction to allow an amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial, it must first reach a positive finding that the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. In this instance, the petitioner's plea that he was waiting for the defendants to produce the document was deemed unacceptable. 

Background 

The dispute originated from Title Suit No. 13/2022, where the petitioner (plaintiff) sought a declaration of right, title, and interest over land in Baksa, Assam. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had already sold a portion of the land via a 1969 sale deed. Although the defendants disclosed this deed in their written statement in November 2022, the plaintiff did not apply for a certified copy until November 2023 and only sought to amend the plaint in February 2024 to challenge the deed as forged. 

The trial court rejected the amendment, citing a lack of due diligence. The petitioner challenged this under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, relying on Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr. ( "(2022) 16 SCC 1": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 652) to argue for a liberal interpretation. Conversely, the respondents cited Kailash Vs Nanhku and Others ( "(2005) 4 SCC 480": 2005 CaseBase(SC) 38), Vidyabai and Ors. Vs Padmalatha and Another ( "(2009) 2 SCC 409": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 9), and Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monika Pandit Mahale and Others ( "(2020) 11 SCC 549": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 910) to support the strict application of the post-trial amendment rules. The Gauhati High Court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the revision petition. 

Case Details: 

Case No.: CRP(IO)/297/2024 

Case Title: RATI RAM BORO VERSUS SUNIL BORO AND 7 ORS. 

Appearances: 

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S Das, Advocate 

For the Respondent(s): Mr. AR Sikdar, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. N Alam, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3(a) to 3(f) 

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GAU) 1263