An amendment contradicting prior admissions cannot be permitted if it alters the fundamental character of the case, and oversight is not a valid ground for amendments after the trial has commenced.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/1^st defendant aggrieved by the orders dated 13.06.2024 in I.A.No.207 of 2024 in O.S.No.87 of 2015 passed by Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad, wherein the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to permit the petitioner to amend the written statement, was dismissed.

2. The original suit was filed for partition and separate possession of land. It is the claim of the Plaintiff that after the death of their parents, the defendant inherited the property, which was subsequently mutated in his name. The plaintiff alleges that despite this mutation, the defendant's ownership claim is invalid, asserting that the property is part of a joint Hindu family estate.

3. I.A. No. 207 of 2024 was filed Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the written statement that was filed by the defendant no. 1. It is the case of the petitioner that initially he claimed in his written statement that the property belonged to his father and was transferred to him through Record of Rights (ROR) proceedings, with mutation completed in 2006. The petitioner seeks to amend his WS to assert ownership and possession of the suit property through a purchase from a lawful owner, contradicting his previous claim of inheritance.

4. It was the specific contention of the respondent/plaintiff before the Court below that the petitioner is estopped under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act from changing his statement as he had previously admitted that the property belonged to his father and allowing the amendment would prejudice the respondent, who has completed evidence based on the original statement.

5. The trial Court observed that the petitioner’s proposed amendment would retract his earlier admission about inheriting the property from his father, which is not permissible. The amendment could fundamentally alter the defence. The proposed amendment lacks specific details, such as the vendor’s identity, date, and mode of purchase. The error in the written statement is considered a fundamental change, not a minor or clerical error. Lastly, the petitioner justified the delay in seeking the amendment by citing an ‘oversight.’ However, the court found this explanation implausible because the rest of the written statement does not support the new claim of purchase, and the amendment appears to be an attempt to fundamentally alter the defence rather than correcting a minor clerical error.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaraj v. Indira in Civil Appeal No. 2886 of 2012, dated 29.02.2024 observed as follows:

“8. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party Page 10 of 15 could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the case in hand, this is not even the pleaded case of respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Trial Court in the application for amendment that due diligence was there at the time of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed for by way of amendment. All what was pleaded was oversight. The same cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings at the fag end of the trial especially when admittedly the facts were in knowledge of the respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs.

9. This Court in M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) by legal representatives and others, (2019) 4 SCC 332 opined that an application for amendment may be rejected if it seeks to introduce totally different, new and inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of the suit. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. prevents an application fo