Pleadings amendment after trial begins requires due diligence; late new defence was rejected as inconsistent and prejudicial.

An amendment to a written statement after commencement of trial is not permitted under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC unless the applicant specifically shows that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. The Court treated trial as having commenced when the suit was set down for recording of evidence. Because the proposed pleas were already within the applicants' knowledge, the application contained no clear explanation for the delay, and the amendment would have introduced a new and inconsistent defence at a late stage, the request was rejected as prejudicial to the opposite party.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to amend their written statement after commencement of trial under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether they had shown that despite due diligence the matter could not have been raised earlier.

Analysis: The amendment sought was moved after issues had been settled and evidence had begun. The Court treated the stage of commencement of trial as having been reached when the suit was set down for recording of evidence. It also found that the matters sought to be introduced were already within the appellants' knowledge from earlier proceedings, yet the amendment application contained no clear or specific averment explaining why those matters could not have been raised before trial despite due diligence. The proposed amendment was also viewed as introducing a new and inconsistent defence and as likely to prejudice the opposite party at a belated stage.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the amendment, as the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 barred the application after commencement of trial in the absence of due diligence.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial cannot be allowed unless the applicant specifically shows that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier; belated amendments introducing a new or inconsistent case are liable to be rejected.

---