Due diligence limits post-trial amendments, and a bare money recovery claim may fall outside commercial dispute jurisdiction.

After commencement of trial, amendment of pleadings requires a specific showing of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC; vague assertions without particulars are insufficient, so the written statement amendment applications were refused. A simple money recovery claim, without a transaction involving mercantile documents or other features falling within Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, does not constitute a commercial dispute. On that footing, the suit was treated as an ordinary suit and Order XIII-A CPC summary judgment was not available, so the summary decree application failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendants could be permitted to amend their written statements after commencement of trial without satisfying the due diligence requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the suit fell within the definition of a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 so as to attract Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for summary judgment.

Issue (i): Whether the defendants could be permitted to amend their written statements after commencement of trial without satisfying the due diligence requirement under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Trial had already commenced once issues were framed and evidence had begun. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 applies once trial has commenced, and the applicants were required to plead and demonstrate that despite due diligence the proposed pleas could not have been raised earlier. The applications contained only vague assertions, without dates, particulars, or a satisfactory explanation as to why the material now relied upon was not considered at the time of filing the written statements. The requirement of due diligence was therefore not met.

Conclusion: The amendment applications were not maintainable and were dismissed, against the applicants.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit fell within the definition of a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 so as to attract Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for summary judgment.

Analysis: The suit was examined against clause (i) of Section 2(1)(c), which covers ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders relating to mercantile documents. A simple money recovery claim does not, by itself, qualify as a commercial dispute. The claim was not founded on any transaction relating to mercantile documents, and the suit had been wrongly filed as a commercial suit. Once the suit was held not to be commercial, Order XIII-A could not be invoked for summary judgment.

Conclusion: The suit was held not to be a commercial suit, and the application for summary decree was dismissed, against the plaintiffs.

Final Conclusion: The written statement amendments were refused for want of due diligence, the suit was reclassified as an ordinary suit, and the request for summary judgment failed because the matter did not fall within the commercial dispute regime.

Ratio Decidendi: After commencement of trial, amendment of pleadings is impermissible unless the applicant specifically pleads and proves due diligence; and a mere money recovery action unsupported by mercantile-document transactions does not constitute a commercial dispute for the purpose of summary judgment under the Commercial Courts regime.

---