Post-trial amendment of pleadings requires due diligence; unexplained delay can justify refusal under civil procedure rules.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings to determine the real controversy, but post-trial amendment is barred unless the applicant shows due diligence and that the plea could not have been raised earlier. The power is discretionary and must be used to avoid prejudice, surprise, and irremediable injustice to the opposite party. On the facts described, the proposed plea based on an alleged partition agreement had been available for years, no satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay, and the suit had already substantially progressed. The amendment was therefore refused for failure to satisfy the due diligence requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether amendment of the written statement could be permitted after commencement of trial in the absence of due diligence and after inordinate delay.

Analysis: Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits amendment of pleadings to determine the real controversy, but the proviso restricts post-trial amendments unless the applicant shows that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence. The power remains discretionary and must be exercised so as to avoid prejudice, surprise, and irremediable injustice to the opposite party. Here, the proposed plea based on an alleged partition agreement was available for years, no satisfactory explanation was offered for not pleading it earlier, and the application was moved only after the suit had progressed for a long time, with evidence and arguments already substantially completed. The conduct did not satisfy the standard of due diligence.

Conclusion: The amendment was rightly refused, and the challenge to the High Court's order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A post-trial amendment of pleadings can be allowed only on a credible showing of due diligence and absence of earlier opportunity; unexplained inordinate delay justifies of the amendment.

---