Dismissed¶26

Farhana Sami v. Dynamik Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC6 Nov 2025CM(M)/2105/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of Written Statement refused after commencement of trial; proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC; due diligence test; post-2002 amendment bar; home maker defendant relying on jailed husband; husband released 05.10.2024, trial commenced 29.03.2025; trial court order dated 23.09.2025 upheld; petition CM(M) 2105/2025 dismissed; Delhi High Court; Justice Girish Kathpalia; petitioner Farhana Sami; respondent Dynamik Developers Pvt Ltd; counsel Mansi Sharma.

What did the court decide?

Per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC introduced by the 2002 amendment, an application for amendment shall not be allowed once trial has commenced, unless the court concludes that in spite of due diligence the applicant could not have raised the matter prior to commencement of trial. ¶18

Farhana Sami Vs Dynamik Developers Pvt. Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/defendant, by exercise of due diligence, could have pleaded in the Written Statement (originally filed or later, before commencement of trial) that she had paid the entire outstanding amount to the respondent/plaintiff even prior to the filing of the suit.

¶18

Court's answer

¶18

Ratio / Principle

During the period from the husband's release from jail on 05.10.2024 till commencement of trial on 29.03.2025, the petitioner/defendant gave no explanation for failing to obtain complete particulars from her husband; the only inference is complete lack of diligence in seeking permission to amend the Written Statement.

¶25

Key takeaways

The learned trial court was correct in taking the view that the amendment application was hit by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.ratio¶25
No infirmity was found in the impugned order; the same is upheld and the petition and accompanying application are dismissed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Justice Girish Kathpalia, 06.11.2025, CM(M) 2105/2025): Petitioner/defendant Farhana Sami challenged the trial court's order dated 23.09.2025 dismissing her application to amend the Written Statement (to plead that she had already paid the entire suit amount to respondent/plaintiff Dynamik Developers Pvt Ltd) on the ground of the bar under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. She contended that, as a home maker dependent on her husband who was in jail when the Written Statement was filed, she learnt of the payments only after his release. The Court held that under the proviso (2002 amendment), no amendment is allowed after commencement of trial unless the applicant shows that despite due diligence the matter could not have been raised earlier. Since the husband was released on 05.10.2024 and trial commenced on 29.03.2025, and no explanation was offered for the failure to obtain particulars in that period, the Court inferred complete lack of diligence, found no infirmity in the impugned order, upheld it, and dismissed the petition and accompanying application.

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 06.11.2025

¶4

+ CM(M) 2105/2025 & CM APPL. 68903/2025

¶5

FARHANA SAMI .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Ms. Mansi Sharma, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

DYNAMIK DEVELOPERS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: None

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶11

Petitioner/defendant has assailed order dated 23.09.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby her application for amendment of Written Statement was dismissed in view of bar under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

¶12

It is contended on behalf of petitioner/defendant that being a home maker, she was dependent upon her husband for the transactions between the parties. It is further contended that when the Written Statement was filed, husband of the petitioner/defendant being in jail, she did not have knowledge of complete facts, therefore, could not plead as regards the payments already made by her to the respondent/plaintiff. It is only after her

¶13

CM(M) 2105/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 3 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6f b4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cb KATHPALIA d2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.11.06 13:22:59 -08'00'

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 6.11.2025 14:30:47

¶17

husband got released from jail that the petitioner/defendant came to know about the fact of payment of entire suit amount already done by her to the respondent/plaintiff. That being so, according to learned counsel for petitioner/defendant, the learned trial court fell in error in applying bar contemplated by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC on her application for amendment of the Written Statement.

¶18

The provision under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as brought in force by way of 2002 amendment of the Code clearly contemplates through its proviso that an application for amendment shall not be allowed once trial has commenced, unless the court comes to conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the applicant could not have raised the matter prior to the commencement of trial. What is to be seen in the present case is as to whether the petitioner/defendant could have, by exercise of due diligence, pleaded in the Written Statement originally filed or later, prior to commencement of trial that she had paid the entire outstanding amount to the respondent/plaintiff even prior to the filing of the suit.

¶19

In response to a specific query, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submits that in the Written Statement, she never pleaded that she is a home maker and not aware about the transaction between the parties.

¶20

Learned trial court observed in the impugned order that the petitioner/defendant did not plead or place on record any document to show that at the time of filing the Written Statement, her husband was in jail.

¶21

Page 2 of 3 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6f b4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80c KATHPALIA bd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.11.06 13:23:20 -08'00'

¶22

CM(M) 2105/2025

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 6.11.2025 14:30:47

¶25

Assuming it to be a case where the petitioner/defendant had no knowledge about the transaction between the parties and assuming that it is her husband who was transacting on her behalf, it is the admitted case of petitioner/defendant that her husband was released from jail on 05.10.2024 and the trial commenced on 29.03.2025. There is not even a whisper to explain as to why during the period from 05.10.2024 till 29.03.2025, the petitioner/defendant did not obtain complete particulars from her husband. The only inference is that there was complete lack of diligence on the part of petitioner/defendant in seeking permission to amend the Written Statement. That being so, the learned trial court was correct in taking the view that the amendment application was hit by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

¶26

I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld. The petition and the accompanying application are dismissed.

¶27

GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶28

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.11.06 13:23:34 -08'00'

¶29

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶30

NOVEMBER 6, 2025/ as

¶31

Page 3 of 3 pages

¶32

CM(M) 2105/2025

¶33

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 6.11.2025 14:30:47

Farhana Sami v. Dynamik Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farhana Sami v. Dynamik Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranab Thareja Vs Pallav Thareja

Aqualite Industries Private Limited through Its Authorized Representative Vs Compass India Food Services Private Limited through Its Authorized Representative

Rishi Marwah Vs Meghna Marwah & Anr.

Shahzad Malik Vs Riyasat Ali

Veena Jain & Anr. Vs Bhushan Kumar Jain & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs Jitender Yadav

Meridian Construction India Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Ors.

Vir Krishna Kotak & Anr. Vs Ifci Ltd.

Pranab Thareja Vs Pallav Thareja

Aqualite Industries Private Limited through Its Authorized Representative Vs Compass India Food Services Private Limited through Its Authorized Representative

Rishi Marwah Vs Meghna Marwah & Anr.

Sonu Patel Vs Vishal Verma

Ramesh Chand & Anr. Vs Bimla

Mahesh Singh Vs Dinesh Kumar Garg & Anr.