Amendments to written statements should be allowed liberally to facilitate justice and avoid multiplicity of litigation, as long as they do not change the underlying defense.

ORDER :

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to set aside the order dated 02.01.2024 passed on IA.no.1/2023 in O.S.No.5100/2008 by the Court of XXXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.5100/2008 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru, seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondent herein has filed her written statement and opposed the suit claim. IA-1/2023 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to amend the original written statement filed on behalf of the respondent. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed IA-1/2023 and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the suit was earlier decreed and as against the said judgment and decree, respondent herein had filed RFA.No.1585/2011 before this Court, which was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court with certain observations. This Court while remitting the suit, after allowing IA-1/2019 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, has not permitted the defendant to amend the written statement. Perusal of the original written statement would go to show that there are sufficient pleadings with regard to the additional documents which were permitted to be produced by the defendant in RFA.No.1585/2011. He submits that IA.no.4 which was filed on behalf of the respondent seeking permission to amend the written statement was rejected earlier and as against the said order, respondent no.1 approached this Court in WP.No.10459/2022 and this Court having permitted the petitioner to withdraw IA.no.4 with liberty to file a fresh application seeking amendment of the written statement, has observed that such application is required to be considered strictly in accordance with the observations passed by this Court in the judgment dated 15.01.2011 passed in RFA.No.1585/2011. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the observations made by this Court and has traveled beyond the judgment passed in RFA.No.185/2011 as well as in WP.No.10459/2022 which is not permissible. He submits that all subsequent events necessarily need not be taken on record and it is for the Court to decide having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LAXMI & CO. VS DR. ANANT R.DESHPANDE & ANOTHER - (1973)1 SCC 37 and also in the case of GHASIRAM S/O JAWAHARLAL JAIN VS KUNJILAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS GUNPAL S/O KUNJILAL JAIN & OTHERS - 1992 MP LJ 103.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order. He submits that in the proposed amendment, petitioner is only seeking to explain the documents which he had produced along with IA-1/2019 in RFA.No.1585/2011. The proposed amendment would not in any way change the nature of defence. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again said that courts should be liberal in considering the applications filed seeking amendment of the pleadings in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. He submits that in the case of B.K.NARAYANA PILLAI VS PARAMESWARAMN PILLAI & ANOTHER - (2000)1 SCC 71