ORDER

Heard the parties.

2. In the present writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought amendment of written statement filed in Title Suit No. 13 of 2009.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that due to inadvertence the following statements have been made in paragraph no. 10 of the written statement, which require amendment.

^^;g fd vthZ ds ikjk laŒ&1 dFku dqN lgh gS rFkk dqN xyr gSA vly gky ;g gS fd nksuksa i{kksa ds LoxhZ; firk us vius thou dky esa 4 Mhñ tehu viuh iRuh eksñ jkèkk nsoh ds uke ls [kjhnk Fkk ftls oknh us ugha n'kkZ;k gSA**

4. Learned counsel further submitted that a statement has been made in the said paragraph that the father of the petitioner and the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 had purchased the land in the name of his wife (mother of the plaintiff and the defendant). It is the specific case of the petitioner for seeking amendment in that on recital made in the sale deed, it appears that the sale deed was executed in favour of the father of the petitioner and the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 and on the basis of such information only incorrect statement made in the WS is required to be amended, which is reproduced hereunder: –

d- nksuksa i{kksa ds Loñ firk us vius thou dky esa 2 Mhñ tehu vius uke ls [kjhnk FkkA
^[k*- firk cky fd'kqu lko ekfyd Fks rFkk la;qDr ifjokj dh vkenuh ls vius uke ls [kjhnkA
x- la;qDr ifjokj ds lHkh yksx firk ds uke ls [kjhnk FkkA

5. Learned counsel further submitted that such amendment only amount to rectification of mistake which was committed at the time of drafting of the case and due to said inadvertence an incorrect statement has been made. He further submitted that the amendment will not change the nature of the suit rather it will facilitate in deciding the issue framed. Learned counsel further relied upon a recent judgment reported in 2022 live law (SC) 729 Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India., paragraph no. 25 and 70, reproduced as under: –

“25. The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defense which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favor of the plaintiff is not withdrawn. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defense taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. The proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by costs. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates in defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. The delay in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement. (See South Konkan Distilleries & Anr. vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 632)

70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negati