Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court laid down the principles governing amendment of written statements. 
• The judgment was delivered by Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice RV Raveendran. 

Facts 

• The Plaintiff (Respondent no. 1) has instituted the suit for partition and separate possession. 
• The Appellants filed their written statement where they admitted that the plaintiff with defendant no. 1 to 7 were entitled to one half share in the suit properties. 
• An application was filed for amendment of written statement where the appellants had sought to add that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 7 could not acquire right, title and interest in the joint family properties, as they were the illegitimate children of the deceased Appasao. 
• The plaintiff contested this application for amendment on the ground that since the appellants in their written statement had admitted that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 were jointly entitled to half share of the suit properties, they could not be permitted to withdraw such admission by amendment of the written statement. 
• The learned Civil Judge allowed the application for amendment of the written statement. 
• The High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and rejected the application for amendment of the written statement. 
  • The High Court relied on the decision of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd v. Ladha Ram & Co. (1976), which as cited by the High Court was a clear authority on the point that once a written statement contained an admission in favor of the plaintiff, by amendment, such an admission of the defendants, cannot be withdrawn and if allowed, it would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff, causing irretrievable prejudice to him.    
• Hence, the matter was before the Supreme Court.  

Issue Involved  

• Whether the amendment of written statement should be allowed? 

Observations 

• The Court first of all analyzed the provision of amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 
  • The amendment that is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties shall be allowed. 
  • The proviso provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 
  • It is well settled that the Court should be liberal in granting prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious prejudice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not bonafide. 
• The Court held that the prayer for amendment of plaint and amendment of written statement stand on different footings.  
• The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. 
• Therefore, addition of new ground of defence or substituting defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable. 
• Also, the Court would be more liberal in allowing the amendment of the written statement than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter. 
• The Court, after laying down the principles, held that this cannot be said to be a case of withdrawal of admission as in fact admission was kept intact and only a proviso was added. Thus, this was not a case of withdrawal of admission. 
• The Supreme Court finally held that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the application for amendment of written statement. 

Conclusion 

• In this judgment the Court reiterated that the rules followed in amendment of written statement are different from those followed in case of amendment of plaint. 
• The Court in this case held that the approach of the Court while allowing amendment of written statement is much more liberal as compared to amendment of plaint