SHASHIKALA SRIRAM SHETTY v. JAGANNATH HONNAYA SHETTY (DECD) AND ORS
The judgment provides a detailed analysis of Order VI Rule 17 and the concept of "due diligence."
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:22601
Decision Date: 09-06-2025
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment extensively discusses Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core issue revolves around the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, which restricts the court's power to allow amendments after the trial has commenced unless the court concludes that the party seeking the amendment could not have raised the matter before the trial's commencement despite due diligence. The judgment emphasizes that "the element of due diligence and satisfaction by the Court about its existence, is a jurisdictional condition to permit the amendment in the pleadings after the commencement of the trial." The judgment cites 'Vidyabai and Ors' (supra) and 'Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. K.K. Modi' to highlight that amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed, provided no prejudice is caused. It quotes the Supreme Court stating, "It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction." The judgment also refers to 'Chander Kanta Bansal (Supra)' to expound on the meaning of "due diligence," defining it as "careful and persistent application or effort." The judgment concludes that the trial court committed a jurisdictional error by allowing the amendment despite finding a lack of due diligence.
🔒 For Members Only