An amendment to a written statement should not be granted if it would result in a complete change of front in the defense or if it is not made in good faith.

1. THIS is an appeal against the judgment of mr. Justice S. C. Ghose dated the 23rd November, 1971 refusing an amendment to a written statement. The suit was filed on May 31, 1962 against three defendants. The defendant no. 2 is stated to be the son of the defendant no. 1. This was a suit for recovery of various sums of money alleged to be due as damages for wrongful breach of duty or trust on the part of the defendants no. 1 and 2 and fraudulent and willful default caused by them to the plaintiff in respect of various goods and chattels belonging to the plaintiff. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, it is alleged "the plaintiff's assets comprise inter alia of coal mines properties known as salma Dalurband Colliery together with all the buildings, plants machinery etc. pertaining to or belonging to the said properties. " This plaint, as we have said, was filed on the 31st May, 1962.

2. ON the 25th September, 1962, the defendant no. 1 filed his written statement. In paragraph 4 of the written statement the defendant no. 1 says "the allegation in paragraph 2 of the plaint is substantially correct. " In other words, the defendant no. 1 admits that the plaintiff's assets comprise inter alia of the properties mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint. On the same day that is, on the 25th September, 1962 the defendant no. 2 also filed his written statement admitting that the plaintiff's assets comprise of properties mentioned above. The defendant no. 3 also filed a similar written statement on the 13th December, 1962. More than eight years later on the 24th November, 1970, the defendant no. 1 took out a Master's summons asking for amendments to his written statement. The amendments proposed, related to paragraph 4 of the original written statement of the defendant no. 1 in which the defendant no, 1 had admitted what the plaintiffs assets comprised of. The amendments asked for, referred to various documents stated to have been executed from time to time and the purpose of the amendments is to establish that the plaintiff had no title to the assets which the plaintiff had claimed. It is this application for amendment which mr. Justice Ghose had disallowed.

3. THE legal proposition involved appears to be well settled. Leave to amend a written statement should not be granted, if the amendment would convert the defence into another of a different and inconsistent character. As in the case of a plaint, so in the case of a written statement, the Court will not allow an amendment that would involve "a complete change of front in the defence. " (Vide Mulla's code of Civil Procedure, Thirteenth edition, pages 732 and 734 to 735.

4. THERE have been numerous decisions in support of the above proposition. We would cite however just a few of them as we intend in the instant case to follow these principles. In Laird vs. Briggs (1880-81) 16 chancery Division page 440 the plaintiff claimed to be a tenant in possession of a part of the foreshore of the sea at Margate, and he sought to restrain the defendant from removing shingle from the foreshore and from placing a bathing machine upon it. The defendant claimed by forty year's enjoyment an easement entitling him to do the acts complained of, and by his statement of defence he denied that the plaintiff was or ever had been in possession of the foreshore in question, "save subject to the rights of the defendant. " at the trial the defendant asked for leave to amend his statement of defence by striking out the qualifying words, making the denial of the plaintiff's possession an absolute one, and. claiming the ownership of the foreshore. Mr. Justice Fry held that the defendant could not be allowed thus completely to change his case. This judgment was relied on by a Division bench of our Court in Saradindu mukherjee vs. Jahar Lal Agarwalla air. 1942 Cal. 153. Mr. R. C. Deb appearing for the appellant has submitted to us that the amendment was disallowed in laird's case because the admission as to possessio