P&H: Refuses To Allow Plaint Amendment After Trial Began, Cites Lack Of Due Diligence

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 24 Jul 2026
Headnotes

(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.17 — Amendment of pleadings — Once the trial has commenced, amendment of pleadings cannot be permitted unless Court is satisfied that despite exercise of due diligence party could not have raised matter before commencement of trial - Requirement of due...

(ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.17 — Amendment of pleadings — Prior knowledge of material — Where material on which amendment is founded was admittedly within knowledge of plaintiffs before filing of suit itself, it cannot be contended that despite exercise of due diligence they...

(iii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.17 — Amendment of pleadings — Amendment sought after filing of written statement, framing of issues, examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and which appears to have been moved only after deficiencies were exposed in cross-examination, is not permissible. (Paras 13, 14...

(iv) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.17 — Amendment of pleadings —  Agreement to sell and payment - Where proposed amendment alters factual foundation regarding mode, manner and timing of payment, which constitutes one of principal issues arising for adjudication in suit - Acceptance of such amendment would require...

 


Facts of the Case

P&H: Refuses To Allow Plaint Amendment After Trial Began, Cites Lack Of Due Diligence

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by Manjeet Singh and another, who had sought to amend their plaint in a suit for recovery of earnest money under an agreement to sell.

The petitioners had originally pleaded that the defendants received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 41 lakh at the time of execution of the agreement dated 20 July 2015. Later, after issues were framed and two witnesses were examined and cross-examined, they sought to change the pleading and say that the amount had actually been paid in instalments till February 2015.

They argued...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File