Plaint Cannot Be Amended at Appellate Stage to Cure a Defect Known Before Trial; ‘Sheer Carelessness’ Fails Due Diligence Test Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC: Supreme Court

Case Name: Chitra & Anr. v. C. Natarajan

Date of Judgment: 28 July 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 781

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Held: The Supreme Court held that although amendments to pleadings may ordinarily be permitted to bring the real controversy before the Court, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC imposes a stricter requirement once trial has commenced: the party must establish that despite exercising due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. Where the plaintiff was expressly alerted to the incorrect vehicle registration number even before the suit was filed but nevertheless continued with the erroneous pleading through trial, the lapse amounted to “sheer carelessness”, not absence of opportunity despite due diligence. The fact that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings does not dilute the statutory restriction, and an amendment cannot be permitted at the appellate stage to cure a defect which could and should have been corrected before trial.

Summary: The dispute arose from a money recovery suit based on a vehicle financing transaction. The plaint stated that the defendant had purchased vehicle No. TN-31-K-9533, whereas the underlying agreement referred to vehicle No. TN-31-F-9533. The discrepancy became one of the grounds on which the suit was dismissed on 27 March 2015. The plaintiff thereafter filed a first appeal and sought amendment of the plaint to correct the vehicle number.

The Principal District Judge, Salem rejected the amendment application. The Supreme Court noted that even before commencement of trial, the defendant’s reply notice had specifically pointed out that no vehicle bearing the number mentioned by the plaintiff had been purchased and identified the different registration number. Thus, the plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to correct the pleading before trial but failed to do so.

Applying the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court held that post-trial amendments stand on a different footing from pre-trial amendments. Once trial has commenced, the applicant must demonstrate that despite due diligence the matter could not have been raised earlier. Since the mistake here was known well in advance, the Court characterised the omission as sheer carelessness and held that the statutory due-diligence requirement was not satisfied.

The Supreme Court further clarified that although an appeal is legally regarded as continuation of the original proceedings, that principle cannot be used to circumvent the express limitations contained in Order VI Rule 17. An amendment seeking to correct the very defect on which the suit had already been dismissed could therefore not be permitted at the appellate stage in these circumstances.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal and set aside the order permitting amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage. It restored the position resulting from rejection of the amendment application and directed that the pending first appeal before the Principal District Judge, Salem be considered independently on its merits.