Amendments to pleadings must not alter the essence of the case without valid reasoning; otherwise, they risk prejudice to the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

As per report of the Registry, sole respondent stands served. As despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent, accordingly, the respondent is ordered to be proceeded against exparte.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 14.09.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur, in CMA No. 564/2023, in Civil Suit No. 36/2021, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioners herein, under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), seeking amendment of the written statement, was dismissed.

3. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

4. The application was rejected by the learned Trial Court by assigning the following reasoning:-

“3.  Heard. Record perused. In the written-statement, the defendant has contended that defendant No. 2 had an old house over Khasra No. 1057 and the same collapsed and defendant No. 1 has not raised any construction over the suit land. The present case was filed by plaintiff qua Khasra No. 1061, 1062 and 1067 and in his written-statement, defendants contended that they have not raised any construction over the suit land. The written-statement was filed on 07/10/2021 and case was listed for consideration on issues and consideration on application u/o 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. But on 12/01/2023, defendants have came with a new defence that they got the land from Hari Singh and Chaudhary and also with the defence that plaintiff is not in possession but defendants are in possession.

4. It has been argued that the amendment in explanatory in nature, but that is not the case. In fact this change in pleadings changes the entire defence of defendants. No cogent reason has been assigned to the delay caused in stating said facts in pleadings and they are not explanatory in nature. Mere advertehce cannot be a ground to change the entire defence. If the amendment is allowed, then it will cause great prejudice to the plaintiff. Therefore, considering the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no merits in the application, as such, same is dismissed with costs of 1000/-. Application stands accordingly disposed off. Be tagged.”

5. During the course of the hearing of this petition, it could not be demonstrated that the findings returned in these paras were perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. A perusal of the written statement earlier filed and the proposed amendments, in fact, clearly demonstrate that the intent of the petitioners were to introduce completely new facts and thus change the entire defence, which is not permissible under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC.

6. Whereas, in the original written statement, the defence of the defendants was that defendants were permanent residents of Village Biari and there was Abadi Tikka of Tika Bairi and defendant No.2 was having old house nearby the house of Diwan Chand and defendant No.2 had sold the said house to defendant No.1 worth Rs.4,00,000/- and old house had collapsed and on the old foundation defendant No.1 had raised construction over Khasra No.1057 of Abadi Tikka and he had not raised any construction over the suit land, now, in terms of the proposed amendment, the petitioners were trying to introduce the pleadings that defendant No.1 had got the property of Smt. Jai Devi, who got estate of her father Chauhdary, who was right holder in Abadi Tikka. Further, defendant No.2 got the property from Hari Singh in the estate along-with Shamlat and Abadi Tikka, land in Khewat No.161, Khatauni No. 194 including Khasra Nos. 1061, 1062, 1077 (that is the suit land), was in the possession of Roopa Devi and plaintiff was never in possession of land comprised in these Khasra numbers. Since, defendant No.2 got the property o