In Brief
Basavaraj, the defendant in a partition suit, appealed against a High Court order permitting the plaintiffs to amend their plaint to seek a declaration that a 2004 compromise decree was null and void. The amendment was sought at the end of trial on grounds of oversight. The Supreme Court held that amendments after trial begins require proof of due diligence despite which the matter could not be raised earlier. Mere oversight is insufficient. Additionally, the relief sought was time-barred under the Limitation Act and not all parties to the compromise decree were before the court. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the amendment, and held such relief cannot be granted indirectly when it cannot be pursued directly.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.