Randhir Singh Vs Gurmeet Singh

The present pe��on has been filed by the defendant of Civil Suit bearing CIS No. CS-37/2021 �tled Gurmeet Singh vs. Randhir Singh , pending before the learned Addi�onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, assailing the order dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby his applica�on under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the wri:en statement has been declined.

¶12

A brief factual background would show that the plain�ff ins�tuted a summary suit in the year 2021 under Order 37 CPC for recovery of ₹8,36,875/- on the basis of a pronote and receipt. Upon entering appearance, the defendant filed his wri:en statement on 23.03.2022. Issues were framed and the par�es proceeded to trial. The plain�ff led and concluded his evidence. It is only therea@er, when the ma:er had reached the stage of defendant’s evidence, that the applica�on under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC came to be filed seeking amendment of the wri:en statement to incorporate the plea that the pronote did not bear the signature of the scribe Surinder Singh and that the receipt was undated.

¶13

The learned trial Court, while rejec�ng the applica�on, has recorded that both the pronote and receipt were part of the record from the YOGESH MEHTA very incep�on of the proceedings. The defendant had ample opportunity to 2026.04.08 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document scru�nize these documents and raise all available pleas at the �me of filing

¶14

CR-2428-2026 [2]

¶15

of the wri:en statement. The applica�on, having been filed at a highly belated stage a@er closure of the plain�ff’s evidence, was held to be lacking in due diligence.

¶16

Learned counsel for the pe��oner has argued that mere delay cannot be a ground to decline amendment and has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh, 2009 (4) SCC (Civil) 294, to contend that even a belated amendment ought to be allowed, if it is necessary for determining the real controversy between the par�es.

¶17

The conten�on, though a:rac�ve at first blush, does not merit acceptance in the facts of the present case.

¶18

It is trite that the object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to enable the Court to determine the real ques�ons in controversy between the par�es. However, by way of the proviso inserted by the Amendment Act of 2002, a clear legisla�ve restric�on has been placed on the power of the Court to allow amendments a@er commencement of trial. Once the trial has commenced, an amendment can be permi:ed only if the Court is sa�sfied that despite exercise of due diligence, the party could not have raised the ma:er before the commencement of trial.

¶19

In the present case, the documents in ques�on, namely the pronote and receipt, form the very founda�on of the suit and were admittedly on record at the �me when the wri:en statement was filed. The pleas now sought to be introduced are neither based on any subsequent event nor on any fact which came to the knowledge of the defendant at a later stage. Rather, these are intrinsic features of the documents themselves, which were available for inspec�on from the outset.

¶20

The defendant has failed to furnish any explana�on, much less a sa�sfactory one, as to why these objec�ons could not be raised earlier YOGESH MEHTA despite due diligence. The absence of the scribe’s signature or the alleged 2026.04.08 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document lack of date on the receipt are ma:ers, which could have been no�ced on a

¶21

CR-2428-2026 [3]

¶22

bare perusal of the documents. The requirement of “due diligence” under the proviso is not an empty formality; it casts a burden upon the party seeking amendment to convince that the plea could not have been raised earlier despite reasonable care and cau�on. This burden remains wholly undischarged.

¶23

Further, permiLng such an amendment at the stage when the plain�ff has already concluded his evidence would result in serious prejudice to the plain�ff and would, in effect, reopen the en�re trial. The nature of the amendment sought is not merely clarificatory but introduces a new line of defence aimed at impeaching the very validity of the founda�onal documents, which would necessitate fresh evidence and poten�ally a de novo trial. Such a course is clearly impermissible in view of the se:led principles governing amendments a@er commencement of trial.

¶24

The reliance placed on Surender Kumar Sharma (supra) is misplaced, as the said judgment does not dilute the mandatory requirement of due diligence under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The law laid down therein applies to situa�ons, where the amendment is essen�al for determining the real controversy and where the party sa�sfies the Court regarding due diligence. In the absence of such sa�sfac�on, the amendment cannot be allowed merely on the ground that it may assist in adjudica�on.

¶25

In view of the above, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has exercised its discre�on judiciously and in consonance with the statutory mandate. No illegality or perversity can be a:ributed to the impugned order warran�ng interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdic�on.

¶26

Consequently, finding no merit in the present pe��on, the same is dismissed.

¶27

07.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶28

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.08 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Randhir Singh v. Gurmeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randhir Singh v. Gurmeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh and Anr. Vs Bijender and Ors.

Gurpeet Singh and Others Vs Nagar Council,Sunam

Kalawati Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Esi Corporation

Jagir Singh Vs Kundan Singh

Purshotam through His Spa Vs Kailash and Others

Ekta Argal Vs Sanjay Kumar and Another