Appeal Dismissed: Amendment to Written Statement Denied Due to Delay and Prejudice Concerns.

The SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the HC's decision to reverse the trial court's order allowing an amendment to the written statement. The appellant's application, filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, was deemed unjustifiably delayed, lacking due diligence, and potentially prejudicial to the respondent. The court emphasized that amendments should not alter the case's character or cause undue prejudice. The trial court was instructed to proceed with the suit without being influenced by the observations in the judgment, to be concluded within three months.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Allegation of forged and fabricated document.
3. Delay and laches in filing the amendment application.
4. High Court's reversal of the trial court's order allowing amendment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC:
The appellant filed an application for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to introduce a written agreement dated 10.09.1982. The trial court allowed the application, but the High Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court examined whether the application for amendment was bona fide and sustainable, considering the provisions of Order VI Rule 17, which permits amendments at any stage but imposes restrictions after the commencement of the trial unless due diligence is shown.

2. Allegation of forged and fabricated document:
The respondent opposed the amendment application, claiming that the agreement dated 10.09.1982 was forged and fabricated. The trial court initially accepted the appellant's explanation and allowed the amendment. However, the High Court, upon reviewing the materials, rejected the application, noting that the alleged agreement had not been mentioned earlier in the written statement or evidence, raising doubts about its authenticity.

3. Delay and laches in filing the amendment application:
The Supreme Court noted the significant delay in filing the amendment application. The suit was filed in 1986, and the written statement was submitted in the same year. The amendment application was filed only in 2004, after the trial had commenced and evidence and arguments were nearly complete. The appellant's explanation for the delay, attributing it to the death of her son who was handling the case, was not found satisfactory. The court emphasized that "due diligence" requires prompt action, and the appellant's inaction for 18 years was unacceptable.

4. High Court's reversal of the trial court's order allowing amendment:
The High Court set aside the trial court's order allowing the amendment, considering the undue delay and the lack of credible explanation for not raising the matter earlier. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the amendment application was filed too late and would prejudice the respondent. The court highlighted that amendments should not be allowed to alter the character of the action or cause irremediable prejudice to the opposite party.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's assessment that the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence and that the amendment application was unjustifiably delayed. The court reiterated the importance of timely action and the need to avoid surprises and delays in litigation. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the judgment, within three months.

---