Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of plaint — Suit for permanent injunction — Subsequent application seeking addition of prayer for declaration of title — Delay of nearly ten years after filing of written statement — Plaintiffs aware of defendant’s title claim since 2015 — Amendment rightly refused. Paras 3 and 6.
Civil Procedure — Due diligence requirement — Amendment after commencement of trial — Knowledge of material facts at initial stage — Held, amendment impermissible when facts were already within plaintiffs’ knowledge.
Where the defendant in written statement filed in 2015 specifically asserted title based on a settlement deed dated 29.03.2004, and plaintiffs sought amendment in July 2025 to include declaration of ownership, the plaintiffs failed to establish that despite due diligence such relief could not have been sought earlier. Paras 3 and 6.
Civil Procedure — Plea of minority — Relevance in explaining delay — One plaintiff major at institution of suit — Minority of co-plaintiff insufficient to justify decade-long delay in seeking declaratory relief. Paras 4 and 5.
Precedent — Reliance on Supreme Court decision permitting amendment at any stage — Applicability — Amendment permissible even at appellate stage subject to due diligence and absence of prejudice — Observations not absolute. Paras 5 and 6.
Held, the observations of the Supreme Court permitting amendment at any stage do not dispense with the requirement of showing due diligence and bona fides. In absence of new facts emerging during trial, and where plaintiffs were aware of rival title claim from inception, amendment cannot be allowed belatedly. Paras 5 and 6.
Result — Civil Revision Petition dismissed — No order as to costs. Paras 7 and 8.
────────────────────────────────────────
RATIO DECIDENDI
────────────────────────────────────────
The ratio of the decision is that amendment of a plaint to introduce a declaratory relief in a suit originally filed for permanent injunction cannot be permitted after long delay when the plaintiff was aware of the defendant’s rival title claim from the stage of written statement and fails to demonstrate that despite due diligence such amendment could not have been sought earlier.
The Court clarified that although amendments may be allowed at any stage of proceedings, including appellate stages, such latitude is subject to the statutory requirement of due diligence and absence of negligence. Where the foundational facts necessitating the amendment were already within the knowledge of the plaintiffs since the filing of the written statement, and no new facts emerged during trial, the belated amendment is liable to be rejected.
Further, the plea of minority cannot be invoked to justify delay when at least one plaintiff was a major at the time of institution of the suit and the cause for amendment arose contemporaneously with the filing of the written statement.
