Bombay High Court

ARJUN VITHOBA SHINDEversusRAJENDRA BABASAHEB SURUANKAR AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The amendment was not permitted because the plaintiff failed to show due diligence as required by Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

Summary

The petitioner, Arjun Vithoba Shinde, challenged a trial court order dated 04.03.2026 that rejected his application to amend the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.212 of 2015. The amendment request was filed after the trial had commenced and the case was posted for final argument. The trial court held that Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, which requires a showing of due diligence for amendments after trial commencement, applied, and found no such diligence was demonstrated. It further observed that the facts sought to be added were already within the plaintiff's knowledge at the time of filing the suit, and no justification was given for the delay. The High Court, agreeing with the trial court, found no merit to interfere with the order under its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether an amendment to the plaint filed after the commencement of trial is permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code
Whether the plaintiff demonstrated the requisite due diligence for such amendment

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VI Rule 17

Subjects

Amendment of plaint
Civil Procedure Code
Due diligence
Writ jurisdiction
Trial stage

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:23845
904-wp-5964-2026.odt
(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 5964 OF 2026

Arjun Vithoba Shinde
VERSUS
Rajendra Babasaheb Suruankar And Ors
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shahaji C. Nadare Patil
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : JUNE 17, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. The petitioner impugns order dated 04.03.2026 passed

below Exhibit-273 in Special Civil Suit No.212 of 2015, whereby

application seeking amendment in plaint has been rejected.

2. The record indicates that application seeking amendment

was filed after commencement of trial when suit was posted for final

argument. The Trial Court has rightly observed that in such case,

proviso under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code requiring to

plead due diligence would apply. Apparently, application for

amendment nowhere suggest due diligence on part of plaintiff.

Further, facts which are sought to be brought on record by way of

amendment were well within knowledge of petitioner/plaintiff at the

time of institution of suit. No explanation is given as to why

amendment proposed was not sought before commencement of trial.
904-wp-5964-2026.odt
(2)

3. In that view of matter, no case is made out to cause

interference in impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Hence, writ petition stands rejected.

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Mujaheed//

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…