--- title: "Supreme Court: Amendment of Pleadings May Be Allowed After Commencement of Trial Where Due Diligence Is Established and the Amendment Is Necessary for Effective Adjudication" date: 2026-10-28 author: "King Stubb & Kasiva" url: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/amendment-of-pleadings-after-commencement-of-trial/ --- # Supreme Court: Amendment of Pleadings May Be Allowed After Commencement of Trial Where Due Diligence Is Established and the Amendment Is Necessary for Effective Adjudication Posted On - 28 October, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva ## **Summary:** The Supreme Court allowed an application for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), holding that the amendment was justified where the proposed pleadings concerned the very property in dispute and were based on the subsequent discovery of a compromise decree affecting the plaintiff’s claimed title. The Court held that the requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 stood satisfied and that the proposed amendment did not fundamentally alter the nature and character of the suit. The Court further clarified that disputed questions of limitation and maintainability need not be conclusively determined at the amendment stage where they depend upon disputed facts. Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders rejecting the amendment, subject to payment of costs of ₹25,000/-. ## **Facts:** - The original plaintiff, Rabindranath Sahoo, instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit property, recovery of possession, rectification of registered sale deeds and consequential reliefs in respect of land purchased under registered sale deeds dated February 15, 1971, and July 28, 1978. - During the pendency of the suit, disputes arose concerning the chain of title to different portions of the property. The defendants relied upon subsequent sale deeds and asserted competing claims over the suit land. - Upon the filing of written statements by certain defendants, the original plaintiff sought amendments to the plaint to incorporate further particulars concerning the disputed plots and the claims asserted by the defendants. - Subsequently, the original plaintiff conducted a search in the office of the Tahsildar, Niali, and discovered a compromise decree passed in T.S. No. 105 of 1998, to which he was not a party. According to the plaintiff, the decree affected a portion of the very property forming the subject matter of the pending suit. - The original plaintiff consequently filed a further application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to incorporate pleadings concerning the compromise decree and a declaration that the final decree passed in T.S. No. 105 of 1998 was null and void. The plaintiff asserted that the relevant particulars and the source of title of the defendants’ vendors had not previously been disclosed and that the compromise decree came to his knowledge only upon obtaining certified copies of the relevant records on June 22, 2020. - During the pendency of the amendment application, the original plaintiff passed away, and his legal heirs were brought on record as the present Appellants. - The trial Court rejected the amendment application on September 21, 2022. The High Court of Orissa, by order dated April 10, 2023, declined to interfere with the trial Court’s decision, leading the Appellants to approach the Supreme Court. - The Respondents opposed the amendment on the grounds of substantial delay, repeated amendments to the plaint, alteration of the nature and character of the suit, limitation and the statutory bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC against challenging a compromise decree by way of a separate suit. ## **Issues:** - Whether an amendment of pleadings sought after commencement of trial satisfies the due diligence requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. - Whether the proposed amendment, which sought to introduce pleadings and reliefs concerning a compromise decree affecting the property already in dispute, fundamentally altered the nature and character of the suit. - Whether an amendment should be rejected at the threshold on the grounds of limitation or the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, where such objections involve disputed facts and questions of maintainability. ## **Judgement:** - **Principles Governing Amendment of Pleadings:** The Court reiterated that Order VI Rule 17 CPC confers discretionary power upon courts to permit amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. However, once trial has commenced, the proviso requires the Court to be satisfied that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. The Court referred to A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation, Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, among other decisions, to reiterate the principles governing amendment of pleadings. - **Requirement of Due Diligence Satisfied:** The Court held that the proposed amendment was based on the subsequent discovery of a compromise decree which allegedly affected a portion of the very property forming the subject matter of the original suit. The fact that the original plaintiff was not a party to the compromise proceedings, coupled with the material indicating that certified copies of the relevant pleadings and decree were obtained on June 22, 2020, provided a sufficient basis for accepting the plea of due diligence at the amendment stage. The Court observed that the explanation could not, in the circumstances, be characterised as mere omission, inadvertence or negligence. - **No Fundamental Alteration of the Nature of the Suit:** The Court held that the proposed amendment did not introduce a wholly independent controversy unrelated to the original cause of action. Rather, it sought to bring on record additional facts and consequential reliefs concerning a compromise decree alleged to affect the title and possession claimed over the same property. Although the amendment enlarged the factual and legal questions requiring adjudication, this did not, by itself, amount to a fundamental alteration of the nature and character of the suit. - **Limitation to Be Determined at Trial:** The Court clarified that although a claim which is clearly barred by limitation is a relevant consideration while deciding an amendment application, an amendment need not be rejected where limitation is arguable and depends upon disputed facts, including the date or manner in which the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the relevant decree. Since the date of knowledge of the compromise decree had not been conclusively determined, the Court left the question of limitation open for consideration by the trial Court. - **Applicability of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC Left Open:** The Court declined to determine whether the proposed challenge to the compromise decree was barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC. It held that questions concerning the maintainability of the challenge, the binding nature of the compromise decree and the legal consequences of the original plaintiff not having been a party to the earlier proceedings were matters to be considered by the trial Court after completion of pleadings. - **Prejudice and Multiplicity of Proceedings:** The Court held that the prejudice alleged by the Respondents, arising from the need to respond to additional factual and legal issues, could be addressed by permitting them to file additional written statements and by imposing appropriate costs. Conversely, refusing the amendment could result in fragmentation of disputes concerning title to the same property into separate proceedings, with the attendant risk of inconsistent findings. - **Amendment Allowed Subject to Costs:** The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial Court and the High Court and allowed the amendment application subject to payment of costs of ₹25,000/- to the contesting Respondents within two weeks. The Appellants were directed to carry out consequential amendments within four weeks thereafter. All questions relating to limitation, maintainability, Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC, the validity and binding nature of the compromise decree, title, possession and the merits of the respective claims were expressly left open for adjudication by the trial Court. ## **Analysis:** This judgment reiterates the settled principle that amendments necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties should ordinarily be permitted, provided they do not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit or cause prejudice that cannot be adequately addressed. It clarifies that the due diligence requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC must be assessed in the factual context of the case, particularly where the amendment is based on the subsequent discovery of a document or decree affecting the subject matter of the pending litigation. The judgment also reinforces that disputed questions of limitation and maintainability should not ordinarily be conclusively determined at the amendment stage where they depend upon contested facts. By allowing the amendment subject to costs while preserving all objections available to the Respondents, the Court sought to facilitate comprehensive adjudication of the existing dispute and avoid multiplicity of proceedings without prejudging the merits of the amended claims. *Last Updated on 28 October, 2026* Get King Stubb & Kasiva’s legal updates in your Google feed[![Add King Stubb & Kasiva as a preferred source on Google](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/google_preferred_source_badge_light_en@2x.png)](https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=https://ksandk.com/) --- ## Office Locations - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com ## Contact - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/) - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190 - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444 - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/) - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)