Amendments to written statements post-commencement of trial are generally not permitted if they withdraw admissions made, in accordance with legal principles of procedural law.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, challenges the legality and propriety of the order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in MACT (Misc. Case) No. 17 of 2012. By the said order, the Tribunal rejected the Petitioner’s application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the C.P.C., which sought to amend his written statement in the proceeding.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Opposite Party and her friend, Payal Choudhury, were traveling towards Master Canteen Square from Sriya Talkies Square when an accident occurred due to the petitioner’s negligent and rash driving. The impact of the accident threw the Opposite Party a considerable distance, rendering her unconscious and causing her to sustain severe head and other injuries. She was immediately taken to Nilachal Hospital, Unit-3, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar, and later referred to Apollo Hospital for further treatment, resulting in significant financial loss.

(ii) Subsequently, the Opposite Party filed an application before the 3rd Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, to claim compensation. The petitioner appeared and submitted a reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Tribunal.

(iii) During the trial, the petitioner filed a petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC , seeking an amendment to his written statement. The proposed amendments were to insert the phrase “it is not a fact” before the word “the rider” in paragraph 18, line 7; to add the word “and” after “Master Canteen Square” in line 14 by deleting the full stop; and to insert the word “and” after “accident” in lines 15 and 17, while deleting the full stops.

(iv) The Opposite Party filed an objection to the amendment petition, arguing that the proposed amendments would alter the nature of the controversy between the parties, if allowed.

(v) The 3rd Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, passed an order on 24.07.2018 rejecting the amendment petition. The Tribunal stated that it is well-settled law that amendments cannot be allowed after the commencement of the hearing, particularly if they seek to withdraw admissions made during cross-examination. Consequently, the petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

(vi) Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Petitioner submitted that in the written statement filed in MACT (Misc. Case) No. 17 of 2012, certain inadvertent typographical and clerical errors had occurred. These errors came to the Petitioner’s knowledge during the trial proceedings, and without any undue delay, the Petitioner filed a petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC before the trial court, seeking to amend the erroneous portions.

(ii) The Petitioner contended that the 3rd Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal arbitrarily and superficially rejected the petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC on 24.07.2018, thereby prejudicing the interest of the Petitioner and causing sheer injustice. The Petitioner argued that allowing the amendment petition would not alter the nature and character of the written statement. Instead, the rejection of the petition had placed the Petitioner in a position where he was deemed to have admitted that the opposite party (the Petitioner in the MACT case) was