Amendment of Pleadings After Commencement of Trial (Order 6 Rule 17 CPC)
An advocate seeking to amend a plaint after the trial has commenced must navigate the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court must be satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the trial began. The amendment must also be necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Courts generally adopt a liberal approach to amendments that do not alter the fundamental character of the suit, provided the other side can be compensated with costs. However, when an amendment is sought after trial has commenced, the focus shifts sharply to whether the applicant has demonstrated due diligence. The listed cases do not directly address Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, and therefore no specific holdings on this provision are available from the provided list.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.
2003 INSC 179Supreme Court · 2003cited 11,973 times
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash criminal proceedings, FIR, or complaint in matrimonial disputes even for non-compoundable offences under Section 498A and 406 IPC.…
- 2
State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another etc. etc.
1992 INSC 357Supreme Court · 1992cited 2,700 times
The Court dismissed the contempt petition and interlocutory applications. The statement of fact in a newspaper report is hearsay and inadmissible without proof by evidence aliunde. The applicant failed to discharge the…
- 3
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others
2010 INSC 428Supreme Court · 2010cited 2,516 times
1. A secured creditor is not required to exhaust remedies against the principal borrower before proceeding against the guarantor under the SARFAESI Act; the notices and application filed by the bank cannot be faulted…
- 4
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others
2021 INSC 253Supreme Court · 2021cited 2,233 times
Police has a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences; courts must not thwart investigation save in exceptional cases. Blanket "no coercive steps" orders without reasons are impermissible and hamper…
- 5
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.
2003 INSC 374Supreme Court · 2003cited 1,894 times
The amendment in Section 115 CPC does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court's power to issue a writ of certiorari and its supervisory jurisdiction…
- 6
Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
2010 INSC 422Supreme Court · 2010cited 1,648 times
Appeal dismissed. High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition where the only respondent was a private landlord with no statutory or public duty and no collusion with any State authority, though its eventual…
- 7
Jai Singh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.
2010 INSC 642Supreme Court · 2010cited 1,108 times
The High Court traveled beyond the well-defined contours of its jurisdiction under Art. 227. That jurisdiction is supervisory and revisional — broader than Art. 226 in some respects, but not appellate; it does not…
- 8
M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors.
1997 INSC 714Supreme Court · 1997cited 1,084 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the complaint and proceedings against the appellants. It held that the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Article…
- 9
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K. C.
2018 INSC 71Supreme Court · 2018cited 1,054 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court. The SARFAESI Act provides a complete statutory framework with an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 (appeal to Debt…
- 10
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota v. M/S. Shukla & Brothers
2010 INSC 209Supreme Court · 2010cited 887 times
Recording of reasons is an indispensable part of the basic rule of law and constitutes an unqualified, mandatory obligation of courts — not merely a qualified duty. Courts must record reasons both at admission stage…
- 11
Gold Quest International Private Limited v. the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
2014 INSC 611Supreme Court · 2014cited 800 times
The power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under s. 482 CrPC is distinct from and not limited by the compounding power under s. 320 of the Code. In disputes substantially matrimonial in nature, or…
- 12
State Bank of Patiala and Ors v. S.K. Sharma
1996INSC459Supreme Court · 1996cited 771 times
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding of 'no evidence' due to the non-examination of one witness was unsustainable. Regarding the non-supply of witness statements, the Court ruled that while Regulation…
Frequently asked questions
Can a plaintiff amend the plaint to add a prayer for possession after the trial has commenced?
The permissibility of adding a prayer for possession after trial commences depends on whether the plaintiff can satisfy the court that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence. The court will also examine whether the amendment changes the nature of the suit or causes irreparable prejudice to the defendant that cannot be compensated by costs.
What does 'due diligence' mean under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC?
Due diligence requires the party seeking the amendment to show that it made a genuine and reasonable effort to include the proposed pleading before the trial commenced. The court will scrutinize the facts to determine whether the omission was inadvertent or a result of a lack of care, and the party must place material on record to demonstrate the efforts taken.
Does correcting the description of a property in a plaint change the nature of the suit?
A correction to the description of the property is generally viewed as a clarificatory amendment that does not change the nature of the suit, provided it does not introduce a new case or substitute the property in dispute. Courts are more inclined to allow such amendments to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, subject to the due diligence requirement if trial has commenced.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on civil procedure & property
- Interim Injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell Immovable Property
- Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Adverse Possession: Ingredients, Hostile Plea and Use as a Sword
- Eviction of Tenant on Ground of Bona Fide Requirement
- Land Acquisition Compensation and Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
- Scope of Review Petition Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC