Site navigation

As of 7 November 2026, Mr. A filed a suit for partition against his brother Mr. B claiming one half…

The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 permits amendment after trial commences only where the court concludes that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised…

Choose your answer

As of 7 November 2026, Mr. A filed a suit for partition against his brother Mr. B claiming one half share (1/2) in the suit property admeasuring 200 sq. yds. inherited from their deceased father through intestate succession. Mr. B disputed the claim and set up an oral family agreement claiming that the entire suit property fell to his share exclusively. The Trial Court framed issues and the matter was set down for trial. Mr. A filed his evidence affidavit and was cross-examined partially. At this stage Mr. A filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint to state that 50 sq. yds. was sold by his deceased father to him by executing an unregistered agreement to sell (ATS), general power of attorney (GPA), will and affidavit all dated 01.01.2005. He therefore sought amendment to plead this fact and contend that the partition in the suit is limited to 150 sq. yds. He stated that the said facts were inadvertently left out by his lawyer while drafting the plaint. Can Mr. A’s application for amendment be allowed?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer D

The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 permits amendment after trial commences only where the court concludes that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. A plaintiff who knew his own transaction and merely blames its omission on drafting has not met that condition. There is no absolute prohibition of every amendment after commencement of trial. Nor does an agreement to sell, GPA, affidavit and will by their execution alone transfer ownership by sale.

See the proviso to Order VI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656.

Option feedback

Option A

Counsel’s omission alone does not establish that the plaintiff could not raise his known transaction despite due diligence; evidence and partial cross-examination show trial has commenced.

Option B

An agreement to sell and GPA do not themselves convey ownership by sale. A will operates on death and must be proved; mere execution of this bundle did not extinguish the father’s title.

Option C

The refusal follows the due-diligence requirement, not an automatic deemed abandonment merely because the documents were omitted from the plaint.

Option D

The plaintiff knew these documents and has shown only inadvertent drafting, not inability despite due diligence to plead the matter before trial. The proviso therefore prevents this amendment on these facts.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic