Sarthak Bhardwaj & Shashwat Awasthi here aim to provide the readers with a comprehensive study of the meaning of ‘commencement of trial’ under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC. Then they move on to criticize the various interpretations attributed to the phrase ‘commencement of trial’ and argues that civil trials commence at the stage of cross examination.
Abstract
Applications for amendment of pleadings form an indispensable aspect of civil trials in India and are governed by Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision allows amendment of pleadings to discover the real question in controversy between the parties. To prevent the provision from being misused, the legislature inserted a proviso to O. VI, R. 17, which prohibited pleadings from being amended after the commencement of trial. However, the provision and the CPC are silent on when a civil trial commences. Furthermore, conflicting judgements by High Courts over the meaning of the phrase ‘commencement of trial’ in Order VI, Rule 17 have resulted in an interpretive imbroglio. Despite substantial practical usage of the provision, the clash of divergent judicial opinions has received scarce academic attention. As the issue awaits deliberation before the Supreme Court, the paper seeks to fill gaps in academic literature and provide a comprehensive study of the meaning of ‘commencement of trial’ under O. VI, R. 17 of the CPC. The paper begins by contextualizing the problem and highlighting the disparate judicial views. It then studies the historical evolution of the law to understand the true legislative intent behind the proviso. The paper then proceeds to critique the various interpretations attributed to the phrase ‘commencement of trial’ and argues that civil trials commence at the stage of cross examination. The paper concludes by emphasizing the urgent need for this legal quagmire to be resolved to expedite the disposal of civil suits.