Property Law: The Court Rules on "Due Diligence" in Seeking to Amend Pleadings.
06 August 2025
Property Law >> Personal Law
The legal dispute involves the heirs of the late Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahluwalia. The plaintiffs, his two sons, claimed that their father was the exclusive owner of the "Suit Property," and therefore, they were entitled to a partition as his Class-I heirs. The defendant (appellant), another son, initially contested this, claiming that his late mother, Mrs. Mohini Ahluwalia, was the owner and had orally agreed to sell the property to him.
The trial for this civil suit had been ongoing for nearly a decade, with issues framed in 2016 and evidence being led by the plaintiffs. In February 2019, the appellant filed an application to amend his written statement, stating that a Will dated 2009, executed by his mother in his favor, had been "subsequently discovered." The single-judge dismissed this application, and the appellant appealed the decision.
High Court's Analysis and Decision:
The High Court considered the appellant's argument that the Will was a newly discovered, material piece of evidence and that the trial was still at an early stage. However, the court found several key issues with this argument:
Relevance of the Will: The court stated that the Will would only be relevant if the appellant could first prove that Mrs. Mohini Ahluwalia was the actual owner of the property. The appellant's initial and consistent claim was that she was the owner, but the plaintiffs maintained their father was. The court emphasized that the central issue to be decided was the true ownership of the property, not the inheritance of the mother's estate. The Will, therefore, was deemed to be of little relevance to the core dispute.
Lack of Due Diligence: The court noted that the civil suit had been pending for ten years. It highlighted that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC requires a party seeking an amendment after the trial has begun to demonstrate that the new evidence could not have been discovered earlier despite due diligence. The court found that the appellant did not meet this criterion, especially since the appellant and another defendant had previously stated in court that their mother had not left a Will.
Stage of the Trial: The court rejected the appellant's claim that the trial was at an "initial stage," pointing out that issues were framed in 2016 and proceedings had been ongoing since then.
Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal. It upheld the single-judge's decision to dismiss the application for amendment. The court's order specified that while the appeal was dismissed, the ongoing suit should be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order.