Amendments to pleadings cannot withdraw clear admissions made earlier, as it would be prejudicial to the opposing party; such amendments must align with the CPC regulations.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mrs. P. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and Mrs. M. Pal, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 2 to 5.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 17.12.2024 of learned 2^nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore passed in C.S. No.709/833 of 2021, wherein the prayer for amendment of written statement filed by Defendant No.2 was refused.

3. Present Opposite Party No.2 being the Plaintiff has filed the suit praying for partition and other consequential reliefs. Defendant No.1 (present Opposite Party No.3) is the son and brother of the Plaintiff whereas Defendant No.3 (present Opposite Party No.1), Defendant No.4 (present Opposite Party No.4) and Defendant No.5 (present Opposite Party No.5) are the daughters of common ancestor and sisters of the Plaintiff. Present Petitioner, who is Defendant No.2, is the wife of common ancestor and mother of the Plaintiff.

4. Initially upon receipt of notice, Defendant No.2 filed her written statement. Subsequently, it is alleged on the part of the Defendant No.2 that said WS filed by her was at the instance of Defendant No.3 and she could not go through said written statement filed by her vividly and thereby some admissions have been made in favour of Defendant No.3. Coming to know the same later she wanted to amend her written statement thereby incorporating certain new facts by deleting facts earlier mentioned in the written statement filed by her. It needs to be mentioned here that prior to filing of such amendment petition by Defendant No.2 she filed a petition to withdraw the written statement filed by her entirely with permission to file the written statement afresh and the same was rejected by learned trial court with liberty granted in favour of Defendant No.2 to bring such necessary amendment in her written statement.

5. It is now contended on behalf of Defendant No.2 that taking advantage of her advance age, Defendant No.3 prevail upon her to manage incorporation of such admissions in the written statement of Defendant No.2 to suit the case of Defendant No.3, which was subsequently realized by Defendant No.2. Therefore, the amendment was sought for.

6. The amendment prayed by Defendant No.2 is not objected by the Plaintiff and other Defendants except Defendant No.3. It is contended on behalf of Defendant No.3 that by way of amendment, the admissions earlier made by Defendant No.2 in her written statement cannot be permitted to be withdrawn and further, deletion of such part of statements of Defendant No.2 by incorporating fresh statements is beyond purview of the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

7. The general principle of amendment is well settled in plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another , (2022) 16 SCC 1 , it has been held as follows:-

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

71.1. Order 2 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 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC.