Post-trial amendment barred for lack of due diligence where it transformed the suit and introduced a time-barred specific performance claim.

An amendment sought after commencement of trial was refused because the applicants did not show due diligence, the proposed pleading would have transformed a declaration-and-injunction suit into one for specific performance and possession, and the new claim was already barred by limitation on the existing pleadings. The court noted that the amendment application did not explain why reliefs such as specific performance, readiness and willingness, possession, and revised valuation had not been pleaded earlier. Since the amendment would have introduced a distinct cause of action and altered the basic nature of the suit, while limitation could not be deferred to justify it, the order allowing amendment was unsustainable and the application had to be rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an amendment sought after commencement of trial, introducing a claim for specific performance and possession, could be allowed when the applicants failed to show due diligence, the proposed amendment changed the nature of the suit, and the amended claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The amendment was sought after the trial had commenced and after the cross-examination of the witness had concluded, so the statutory requirement of due diligence was attracted. The pleadings in the amendment application did not explain why the relief of specific performance, readiness and willingness, possession, and the consequential valuation could not have been raised earlier. The original suit was for declaration and injunction on an asserted concluded conditional contract, whereas the proposed amendment sought to convert it into a suit for specific performance with a distinct foundation, distinct reliefs, and a different cause of action. The amendment also introduced a claim that, on the existing pleadings, was beyond the limitation period applicable to specific performance, and the plea that limitation should be tried later could not justify permitting an otherwise barred and transformative amendment.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be allowed. The order permitting amendment was unsustainable and the application for amendment was liable to be rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned order granting amendment was set aside, resulting in rejection of the amendment application.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment after commencement of trial that introduces a new relief of specific performance, without due diligence, and which alters the basic nature of the suit or is barred by limitation, cannot be permitted.

---