Post-trial amendment in specific performance suits requires due diligence; omission of readiness and willingness is a substantive pleading defect.

A plaint for specific performance could not be amended after trial had concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment, because Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits post-trial amendment only on a showing of due diligence. The omission to plead readiness and willingness was not a mere typographical error; it was the absence of a mandatory foundational averment under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As the party failed to explain why the plea could not have been raised earlier, the amendment was impermissible and the trial court correctly refused it. The High Court erred in interfering with that refusal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaint seeking specific performance could be amended after conclusion of trial and reserving the matter for judgment, on the plea that the omission to plead readiness and willingness was a typographical error and despite the requirement of due diligence under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The amendment was sought after the trial had concluded and arguments had been completed. Under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no amendment can be allowed after commencement of trial unless the party shows that despite due diligence the matter could not have been raised earlier. In a suit for specific performance, Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 requires a specific averment of readiness and willingness, and the prescribed pleading format also reflects that requirement. The omission was not a mere clerical lapse but the absence of a mandatory foundational plea. The explanation of typographical error was rejected because the defect was substantive and the party had not shown due diligence.

Conclusion: The amendment ought not to have been allowed. The High Court erred in interfering with the trial court's refusal to permit amendment.

---