Failures in due diligence and attempts to withdraw admissions in pleadings preclude amendments in civil suits post-evidence closure.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A. Sarangi, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 & 2.

2. Present CMP is directed against the order dated 17^th February 2025 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela passed in C.S.No.162 of 2017, wherein the prayer for amendment of the written statement filed on behalf of defendants No.1 & 2 has been rejected.

3. The plaintiffs, who are present Opposite Parties 1 & 2, have filed C.S.No.162 of 2017 praying for reliefs to declare RSD dated 18^th May 2010 as null and void on the ground of fraud as well as the Power of Attorney dated 28^th January 2005. They have further prayed for other consequential reliefs including correction in the ROR and eviction of defendants No.1 & 2 from the suit house.

4. Defendants No.1 & 2 appeared in the suit and contested by filing their written statement as per Annexure-2. The suit proceeded and the witnesses were examined from the side of the plaintiffs. After closure of evidence from the side of the plaintiffs, a petition dated 5^th April 2024 was filed by defendants No.1 & 2 praying to amend the written statement filed by them. It is stated in the petition (Annexure-3) that after change of the counsel for defendants No.1 & 2, they came to know that the previous counsel has not drafted the written statement according to their instructions and omitted to deny certain facts mentioned in the plaint which are completely false. It is further stated that upon engaging the new counsel after commencement of hearing, the defendants feel it appropriate to amend the written statement and as such, no fault can be attributed on their part for the delay in bringing such amendment.

5. Learned trial court rejected the prayer for amendment mainly on the ground that defendants no.1 & 2 have failed to justify due diligence on their part in bringing the amendment to the written statement and moreover, certain admissions made in the written statement are now sought to be withdrawn by way of the present amendment.

6. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that defendants No.1 & 2 having not aware of such omissions committed in the written statement filed by them could not bring the amendment before commencement of the trial of suit and they only came to know about the same upon engaging a new counsel to conduct the case on their behalf. It is denied on behalf of the Petitioners (defendants No.1 & 2) that they never seek to alter the admissions made in the written statement since from the very beginning it is their consistent defence that late Ranjit Singh died as a bachelor and the plaintiffs are neither his wife nor sons.

7. Mr.Sarangi, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 and 2 submits that when the amendment sought for after commencement of hearing, it is imperative on the part of the defendants to explain the delay caused on their part in bringing such amendments and secondly, the defendants cannot be permitted to alter or withdraw their admissions made in the original written statement upon change of the counsel on their part.

8. The principles relating to amendment as per the provisions under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC has been explained in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd & Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 1128. In the said report, it has been observed as follows:-

“71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC 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