1 Answer
Dear Sir,
once issues are framed by the Court, the suit is generally understood to have entered the trial stage within the meaning of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The commencement of trial is not strictly dependent upon filing of affidavit evidence; rather, judicial precedents have consistently held that the stage of trial begins at least from the point when issues are settled and the matter is posted for evidence. Therefore, even though the plaintiff has not yet filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, the case would still be treated as having crossed the pre-trial stage. The very act of the plaintiff filing an application under Order XVIII Rule 1 seeking alteration of the order of leading evidence indicates that the matter had already reached the evidence stage, and the plaintiff was conscious of his obligation to begin.
In such a scenario, any application for amendment filed in February 2026, long after institution of the suit in April 2023 and after framing of issues, would attract the rigour of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The plaintiff must satisfy the Court that, despite due diligence, the proposed amendment could not have been raised before commencement of trial. Where the amendment seeks to introduce a new cause of action and substantially enhances the valuation of the suit (here, eight times the original value), it is not merely a clarificatory or formal amendment but a fundamental alteration of the nature and scope of the suit. Courts are generally reluctant to permit such amendments at this advanced stage, particularly when no satisfactory explanation of due diligence is provided.
Further, the sequence of events—first seeking to shift the burden of leading evidence onto the defendant, and upon dismissal of that application, immediately moving for amendment—may be viewed by the Court as an attempt to delay proceedings or fill lacunae after realization of weaknesses in the case. Hence, unless the plaintiff convincingly demonstrates that the new facts were genuinely unavailable earlier despite due diligence, the amendment application is likely to be rejected as being barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and as one that would prejudice the defendant by altering the character of the suit at the trial stage.