The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure forbids amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced — unless the court concludes that, in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before. In Haramani Sahoo v. Lalita Nayak (Civil Appeal No. 13681 of 2026, decided on 12 October 2026, 2026 INSC 1112), a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan has applied that exception to let a plaintiff's legal heirs plead a challenge to a compromise decree in a third-party suit, discovered mid-trial through a search in the Tahsildar's office.
The rule and its proviso
Order VI Rule 17 CPC embodies two opposing policies. The main rule is liberal: the court may at any stage allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such manner as may be just, and all amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy shall be made. The proviso, inserted in 2002 to curb dilatory amendments, is strict: once the trial has commenced, no amendment shall be allowed unless the court concludes that, in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before. Post-2002 jurisprudence has largely been an exercise in locating individual cases on the line between the two.
How the dispute travelled
What satisfied the due-diligence test
The Court accepted the explanation that a stranger to a decree cannot be presumed to know of it. The plaintiff\'s knowledge began with the defendants\' own disclosures, was completed by the certified copies, and the application followed. Due diligence, in other words, is tested against what the party could realistically have discovered — not against an omniscient standard. Equally important was what the amendment did not do: it introduced no new cause of action foreign to the suit. The decree concerned the same property; the declaration sought was ancillary to the title and possession questions already on trial. An amendment that merely enlarges the grounds on which the existing controversy is fought stands on a different footing from one that substitutes a new case.
Prejudice, costs and the alternative of multiplicity
| Factor | How the Court weighed it |
|---|---|
| Stage of the suit | Trial had commenced, so the proviso applied — but the explanation for late discovery satisfied it |
| Nature of the suit | Unchanged: same property, overlapping title and possession issues |
| Prejudice to defendants | Curable by additional written statements and costs of Rs. 25,000 |
| Limitation | Arguable, since the date of knowledge was disputed — left open for trial |
| Refusal\'s consequence | Would force a separate suit over the same title — multiplicity the amendment avoids |
Why the case matters in Delhi practice
Suits over family property in the District Courts of Delhi routinely surface old decrees, settlement deeds and mutation orders mid-trial, because revenue and registration records are searched seriously only once litigation hardens. This judgment confirms that discovery of such a document during trial is not fatal to pleading it — provided the party moves promptly, documents the trail of discovery, and the new plea genuinely belongs to the existing controversy. It also reiterates the other side of the coin: questions of limitation and the special bar of Order XXIII Rule 3A (which requires a compromise decree to be challenged in the same suit in which it was passed) remain fully alive for trial, so an allowed amendment is the beginning of an argument, not its end.
Neutral citation 2026 INSC 1112; the judgment is reportable. The appeal arose from SLP (C) No. 25635 of 2023 against orders of the Orissa High Court and the trial court at Cuttack.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the amendment sought?
The plaintiff in a 2009 title suit at Cuttack — seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and rectification of sale deeds of 1971 and 1978 — learnt during trial of a compromise decree in T.S. No. 105 of 1998 concerning a portion of the same property, to which he was not a party. After obtaining certified copies in June 2020, he sought to amend the plaint to seek a declaration that the final decree was void. The trial court and the Orissa High Court refused the amendment.
Why did the Supreme Court allow it?
Three reasons: the plaintiff was not a party to the 1998 suit and satisfactorily explained the late discovery, meeting the due-diligence test in the proviso; the amendment concerned the same property and overlapping questions of title and possession, so it did not change the basic nature of the suit; and any prejudice to the defendants could be cured by an additional written statement and costs — fixed at Rs. 25,000.
Does the ruling decide that the compromise decree is invalid?
No. The Court expressly left limitation, the applicability of Order XXIII Rule 3A, maintainability, the validity of the decree, and the merits of title for the trial court. Allowing an amendment only brings a plea onto the record; it decides nothing about its eventual success.
What is the practical lesson for pending suits?
A party who discovers a new document or decree affecting the suit property mid-trial should move promptly, place the date and circumstances of discovery on affidavit, and explain why earlier discovery was not possible. Courts also weigh the alternative: refusing the amendment here would have split one title dispute into multiple proceedings — a factor that favoured allowing it.