Pleading amendment after trial begins requires due diligence; absence of it makes post-trial amendment impermissible.

Amendment of a written statement after commencement of trial is barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC unless the applicant shows due diligence and that the matter could not have been raised earlier. Trial commences when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording evidence, including filing of examination-in-chief by affidavit. On the stated facts, the proposed amendments were already within the defendants' knowledge, due diligence was not shown, and the trial court's refusal to permit amendment was consistent with the statutory restriction. Interference by the High Court without identifying any error of law or jurisdiction was unsustainable, and the amendment was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an amendment of the written statement could be allowed after the trial had commenced, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's refusal to permit such amendment.

Analysis: The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inserted by the 2002 amendment, bars amendment after commencement of trial unless the court is satisfied that despite due diligence the matter could not have been raised earlier. Trial was held to commence when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence, and filing of examination-in-chief by affidavit is part of that stage. On the facts, the parties had already reached the evidence stage, and the trial court had found that the proposed amendments were within the defendants' knowledge from the beginning and that due diligence was not shown. The High Court did not properly address the jurisdictional limitation created by the proviso and interfered without finding any error of law or jurisdiction in the trial court's order.

Conclusion: The amendment applications were not maintainable after commencement of trial in the absence of due diligence, and the High Court's interference was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order permitting amendment was set aside, leaving the refusal of amendment in place.

Ratio Decidendi: After the 2002 proviso to Order VI Rule 17, amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial is impermissible unless due diligence is shown, and trial commences when issues are framed and the case is set down for evidence.

---