In a significant ruling on civil procedure, the Karnataka High Court has clarified that courts are not bound to reject every amendment application filed after the trial begins. The Dharwad Bench held that the “due diligence” requirement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) must be applied with flexibility, depending on the nature of the amendment sought.
The decision came in a writ petition filed by Mohammad Rafi and another, challenging a trial court order that had rejected their plea to amend the plaint nearly ten years after the suit was filed.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh HC Quashes APSRTC Tender, Slams Monopoly in Bus Station Shop Allotments
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed in 2015 concerning ownership and possession of a property in Hungund, Bagalkot district.
The plaintiffs had originally sought a declaration that a 2009 sale deed executed by their father in favour of the defendants was invalid, along with a permanent injunction. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed ownership and possession based on the same sale deed.
During the course of the trial, after examination of witnesses, the plaintiffs moved an application in 2024 seeking to amend the plaint. They claimed that they were dispossessed from the property in 2022 and sought to add a relief of possession.
The trial court rejected this request, citing delay, lack of due diligence, and the fact that the amendment would change the nature of the suit.
Read also:- Supreme Court Refuses to Stop CCI Probe Into JioStar Over Alleged Abuse of Dominance in Kerala TV Market
The central question before the High Court was whether an amendment filed after the commencement of trial must always satisfy the “due diligence” requirement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC - or whether courts retain discretion in appropriate cases.
Court’s Observations
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde undertook a detailed examination of Order VI Rule 17 and its 2002 amendment. The Court noted that the proviso was introduced to prevent misuse of amendments that delay trials, but it was never intended to completely bar genuine amendments.
“The due diligence test cannot be applied mechanically in every case,” the court observed.
The judge clarified that the law still allows amendments even after trial has begun, especially where:
- The amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute
- It avoids multiple litigations
- It relates to events that occurred during the pendency of the case
- It only changes the nature of relief and not the basic cause of action
The court emphasized that procedural law must serve justice and not defeat it.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Stops AI Film Using Akira Nandan’s Identity, Orders Takedown of Deepfake Content
On Delay and Alleged Contradictions
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had admitted earlier that dispossession occurred in 2014 and that the new plea of dispossession in 2022 was contradictory.
Rejecting this argument, the court held that:
- The truthfulness of the claim must be tested during trial
- An amendment cannot be rejected merely because it appears to contradict earlier statements
- Even admissions can be explained or clarified during evidence
The judge noted, “At the stage of deciding an amendment application, the court cannot conduct a mini trial or decide disputed facts.”
On Change in Nature of Suit
The High Court also rejected the contention that seeking possession would change the nature of the suit.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that changing the form of relief does not necessarily alter the nature of the suit if the core dispute remains the same.
“The basic question - who has title over the property - remains unchanged,” the court observed.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Blocks Fake 'Delhivery' Domains, Orders Banks to Freeze Accounts in Major
Final Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court:
- Set aside the trial court’s order rejecting the amendment
- Permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint
- Imposed a cost of ₹7,000 on the plaintiffs
- Allowed defendants to file an additional written statement
- Clarified that the issue of when dispossession occurred will be decided during trial
The court concluded that rigid application of procedural rules should not obstruct substantive justice.
Case Title: Mohammad Rafi & Anr. v. Bande Nawaz & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 108512 of 2025
Decision Date: 16 December 2025
