No Pleadings Amendment Post-Trial Without Due Diligence: Punjab & Haryana HC

In a decisive blow against dilatory litigation tactics, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that appellate courts cannot grant litigants a second bite at the apple by allowing post-trial amendments to pleadings without compelling proof of due diligence.

Justice Deepak Gupta, presiding as a single judge bench, dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of a belated application to amend a written statement at the appellate stage, firmly holding that supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to reopen concluded trial court findings.

High Court's Analysis and Observations

The court emphasized that while Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC confers broad power to allow amendments at any stage, the mandatory proviso restricts judicial discretion once the trial commences. Relying on precedents like Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another ( "(2009) 2 SCC 409": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 9) and Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and others ( "(2009) 10 SCC 84": 2009 CaseBase(SC) 844), the Court stressed that an applicant must clear the threshold of due diligence.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The power to permit amendment is discretionary and cannot be exercised to enable a party to introduce facts which were within his knowledge throughout and which were deliberately or negligently omitted at the appropriate stage."

Addressing the scope of supervisory powers, the Court outlined its limits while declining relief to the petitioner:

"This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, is not sitting as an appellate Court over every interlocutory order passed by a subordinate Court. The supervisory jurisdiction is intended to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction and is to be exercised sparingly where there is a patent jurisdictional error, perversity, gross dereliction of duty or manifest failure of justice."

The Court issued no specific substantive directions, concluding with:

"Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending appeal, which shall be decided by the learned appellate Court independently on the basis of the pleadings and evidence already on record."

Background

The dispute originated from an agreement to sell executed on 04.07.2002 by the petitioner-defendant Mukand Singh in favour of respondent Sukhwinder Singh for agricultural land. Upon the petitioner's failure to execute the sale deed, the respondent filed a suit for specific performance in 2004. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent on 18.11.2009.

During the pendency of his first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in December 2011, seeking to amend his written statement. He sought to introduce new factual pleas regarding the existence of a residential double-storey kothi, cattle house, boundary wall, and his prolonged illness to claim that the contract was unconscionable under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.

The appellate court dismissed the amendment application on 11.03.2014, observing that the facts were within the petitioner's knowledge during the trial. Dismissing the revision petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court affirmed the lower court's findings and refused to interfere.

Case Details:
Case No.: CR No.4676 of 2014 (O&M)
Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:111233
Case Title: Mukand Singh v. Sukhwinder Singh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Dhanda, Advocate for Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 8515