Dismissed¶32

K.Palani and Another v. C.Raja and Another

Madras HC12 Jun 2026A/1211/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: amendment of pleadings; leave to amend written statement; counter claim; Judges Summons; Order VI Rule 17 proviso; amendment after commencement of trial; due diligence condition; Truth Labs report; fabricated plaint documents; disputed signatures; expert opinion admissibility; evidence must follow pleadings; Madras High Court; CS No. 27 of 2024; A No. 1211 of 2026; defendants 1 and 2; plaintiff C.Raja / M/s Honest Builders; K.Sridevi; Thomas T Jacob; R.Aparna.

What did the court decide?

The written statement and counter claim of the applicants/defendants 1 and 2 already contain the plea that the plaint documents are fabricated and the signatures relied upon by the plaintiff are disputed; therefore the material facts constituting the defence and counter claim are already on record. ¶26

K.Palani and Another Vs C.Raja and Another — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants/defendants 1 and 2 should be granted leave to amend their written statement and counter claim so as to incorporate averments based on the Truth Labs report dated 04.10.2024. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Truth Labs report dated 04.10.2024 is only a piece of evidence sought to be relied upon in support of the existing plea of fabrication; since pleadings should contain material facts and not the evidence by which such facts are to be proved, it is not necessary to amend the written statement and counter claim merely to incorporate the contents or conclusions of the report.

¶27

Key takeaways

The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates that no amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of trial unless the applicant establishes that, despite exercising due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.ratio¶30
Evidence must follow pleadings and not vice versa; the proposed amendment sought to incorporate matters emerging from evidence obtained subsequent to the pleadings, and permitting it at that stage would amount to reshaping the pleadings on the basis of subsequently obtained evidence, which is impermissible in law.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete), order dated 12-06-2026 in A No. 1211 of 2026 in CS No. 27 of 2024: dismissed the application of defendants 1 and 2 (K.Palani and Senthil Kumar alias K.Senthil Raj) for leave, by Judges Summons, to amend their written statement and counter claim in suit CS No. 27 of 2024 so as to incorporate averments based on a Truth Labs report dated 04.10.2024 said to support their existing plea that the plaint documents are fabricated. Held: pleadings must contain material facts and not the evidence by which facts are to be proved; the report is merely evidence supporting a plea already on record; under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC no amendment is allowable after commencement of trial unless the applicant shows due diligence, and evidence must follow pleadings, not vice versa, so reshaping pleadings on subsequently obtained evidence is impermissible. Application dismissed with no costs.

¶1

A.No.1211 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

A No. 1211 of 2026 IN CS NO. 27 OF 2024

¶7

K.Palani And Another S/o Late Mr.S.S.Krishnamoorthy, No.4/3,Agarwal Nagar, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Mathunga (e), Mumbai - 400 019.

¶8

Mr.Senthil Kumar Alias K.Senthil Raj S/o Late Mr.S.S.Krishnamoorthy, No.10, Bagavantham Street, T.Nagar Chennai - 600 017.

¶9

..Applicant(s)

¶10

¶11

C.Raja And Another Proprietor Of M/s Honest Builders, Having Office At No.13/17, Rear Building, 18th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083.

¶12

Mrs.K.Sridevi W/o Mr.Babu, No.59a, Padmavathy Nagar, Kamaraj Salai, Virugambakkam, Chennai - 600 092.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

To grant the Applicants/1st and 2nd Defendants leave to amend their written statement and Counter Claim as prayed for as stated in the schedule of the Judges Summons.

¶15

1/5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

For Applicant(s): M/S.Thomas T Jacob For Respondent(s): Ms.R.Aparna

¶18

A.No.1211 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This application has been filed by the applicants / defendants 1 and 2 seeking leave to amend the written statement and counter claim as set out in the schedule to the Judge’s Summons.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that after filing of the written statement and counter claim, the applicants obtained a report dated 04.10.2024 from Truth Labs. It is submitted that the said report supports the plea already raised by the applicants that the plaint documents are fabricated. Therefore, the applicants seek amendment of the written statement and counter claim by incorporating averments based on the said report.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent / plaintiff opposed the application by filing a common counter. It is contended that the proposed amendment is unnecessary, belated and based upon documents whose admissibility and reliability are disputed. It is further contended that the Truth Labs report cannot be treated as a valid expert opinion at this stage. 2/5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

A.No.1211 of 2026

¶25

This Court has considered the submissions made on either side.

¶26

The written statement and counter claim filed by the applicants / defendants 1 and 2 already contain the plea that the plaint documents are fabricated and that the signatures relied upon by the plaintiff are disputed. Therefore, the material facts constituting the defense and counter claim are already on record.

¶27

The Truth Labs report dated 04.10.2024 is only a piece of evidence sought to be relied upon by the applicants in support of their existing plea of fabrication. It is well settled that pleadings should contain material facts and not the evidence by which such facts are to be proved.

¶28

Therefore, it is not necessary to amend the written statement and counterclaim merely for the purpose of incorporating the contents or conclusions of the Truth Labs Report. The suit is now at the fag end of the trial. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure draws a clear distinction between amendments sought before the commencement of trial and those sought after the commencement of trial. It mandates that no amendment shall be allowed after the 3/5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

A.No.1211 of 2026 commencement of trial unless the applicant establishes that, despite exercising due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

¶31

In the present case, the proposed amendment is sought not to clarify an existing plea, but to incorporate matters emerging from evidence obtained subsequent to the pleadings. It is a settled principle that evidence must follow pleadings and not vice versa. Permitting such an amendment at this stage would amount to reshaping the pleadings on the basis of evidence that has subsequently come on record, which is impermissible in law.

¶32

In the above circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the application. Accordingly, the application seeking amendment of the written statement and counter-claim is dismissed. No costs.

¶33

12-06-2026

¶34

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶35

¶36

4/5

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

A.No.1211 of 2026

¶39