The court emphasized that amendments to Written Statements should be allowed liberally, especially when the suit is at an early stage, correcting the Trial Court's misapplication of res judicata principles.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of the present Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has assailed the Order dated 25^th of September, 2023 (for short “the impugned Order”) passed by the Court of learned 1^st Additional District Judge, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in the Suit filed by the Respondent herein titled ‘Riyaz Ahmad Bhat v. Ghulam Hassan Khanyari & Anr.’, whereby the application filed by the Defendant No.1/ Petitioner herein seeking amendment of the Written Statement has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant Petition, as emerge from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that the Plaintiff/ Respondent herein filed a Suit against the Petitioner herein and another person before the Trial Court, thereby seeking Decrees of Declaration, Ejectment, Possession and Mandatory Injunction, which is pending final adjudication before the Trial Court. On being put to notice, the Defendant No.1/ Petitioner herein appeared before the Trial Court and filed his Written Statement, however, after filing of the same, the Defendant No.1/ Petitioner herein is stated to have felt a need to supplement the said Written Statement with better particulars in order to allow the Trial Court to adjudicate the real controversy between the parties by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

2.1. The said application, however, came to be rejected by the Trial Court in terms of Order dated 17^th of April, 2018, which Order was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court through the medium of Writ Petition bearing OWP No. 976/2018. This Court, in terms of Judgment dated 13^th of July, 2022, rejected the said Petition filed by the Petitioner by holding that the application seeking to supplement the Written Statement of the Defendant No.1/ Petitioner herein was not in conformity with the mandate of Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and that the same, in fact, amounted to amendment of the Written Statement.

2.2. Consequently, the Petitioner claims to have taken recourse to the filing of an application before the Trial Court for seeking amendment of his Written Statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Trial Court, however, in terms of the Order impugned, dismissed the said application moved by the Petitioner seeking amendment of the Written Statement as well. It is this Order dated 25^th of September, 2023 passed by the Trial Court that has been called in question by the Petitioner through the medium of the present Petition by invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The impugned Order has been challenged by the Petitioner, inter alia, on the following grounds:

“A. Because, Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers wide discretionary powers upon the Court to allow either of the parties to amend their pleadings. This discretion is supposed to be exercised by combing the judicial mind with well established legal principles. In the instant case, the learned Court of 1^st ADJ Srinagar has failed to exercise the power/ jurisdiction in the manner as laid down in the judicial principles laid and evolved by the Courts. The proposed amendment had neither incorporated new facts nor would have resulted in causing any prejudice to the Respondent. The Ld. Trial Court has thus failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance to the law. Impugned order is hence liable to be set aside;

B. Because, the restrictions and limitations attached to the amendment of a plaint are different and the restrictions and limitations attached to the amendment of a written statement stand on a different footing. In terms of the amendment sought by the Petitioner to his written statement, none of the admissions if any were sought to be withdrawn by way of the amendment. The Petitioner had only sought to extend explanation by way of placin