Amendments to pleadings are allowed to avoid injustice but cannot permit withdrawal of admissions that would prejudice the opposite party or alter the nature of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Present CMP is directed against the order dated 29^th April 2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Balangir passed in C.S.No.173 of 2008, wherein the prayer of the defendant to amend his written statement has been refused.

2. Heard Mr.P.K.Nanda on behalf of Mr.J.Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.T.Nanda, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

3. Present Opposite Party being the plaintiff filed the suit praying for declaration of right title over the suit Schedule-II land and confirmation of possession along with other consequential reliefs. The defendant appeared and filed his written statement on 22^nd September 2009. However, the suit could not proceed substantially till 2024 though issues have been framed, but evidences were not adduced. The defendant in his petition dated 21^st September 2022 prayed to amend the written statement on the ground that earlier lawyer appearing for him has mispresented certain facts in the written statement.

4. It is seen from copy of the petition (under Anenxure-3) that, the amendment proposed is substantial, whereby certain sentences relating to source of accrual of the suit property in favour of the defendant have been sought to be changed by way of deletion and substitution. It is objected by the plaintiff that the defendant cannot alter his defence after thirteen years of filing of his written statement to withdraw the admissions made on his part and to create new story with regard to his source to succeed the property.

5. Learned trial court rejected the prayer for amendment stating that such withdrawal of admissions and change of defence diametrically contrary to the stand taken earlier is not permissible after thirteen years of filing of written statement.

6. It is true that the prayer for amendment of pleadings has to be dealt with a liberal approach. In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another , (2022) 16 SCC 1, 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 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.

71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:

71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided

(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,

(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:

71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration.

71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.

71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or

71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadin