The court upheld that amendments to pleadings are permissible to ensure fair adjudication, provided they do not alter core admissions or create undue prejudice.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of October 2025

This FAO is filed challenging the judgment dated 15.02.2012 in A.S.No.59 of 2003 of the Additional Sub Court, Paravur, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2003 in O.S.No.638 of 1998 of Munsiff Court, Aluva. Appellants were the plaintiffs in the O.S. and respondents 1 to 4 in the A.S. Respondents herein were defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. Defendant No.3 was the 5^th respondent in the A.S. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the trial court.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and recovery of property. The trial court decreed the suit. Two among the three defendants filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree. The 3^rd defendant did not choose to challenge the decree and was arrayed as 5^th respondent in the appeal. While the appeal was pending, one among the defendants sought to amend the written statement and filed a petition to accept documents. The same were allowed by the Appellate Court. The matter was thereafter remanded for fresh trial. Aggrieved by the said order of remand, this FAO is filed.

3. Heard Smt.Sindhu Santhalingam, Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri.Paul K.Varghese, Advocate for respondent No.1.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs contended that the judgment of the appellate court is not sustainable in law and is fit to be interfered with. It is contended that I.A.No.235 of 2012 filed by defendants 1 and 2 to amend the written statement and I.A. No.300 of 2012 to accept photocopies of 16 documents as additional evidence in the above case at the appellate stage when the appeal was taken up for disposal, ought not have been entertained or allowed by the appellate court. The appellate court ought to have noted that in the original written statement, the contention raised by defendants 1 and 2 was that they have got possession of the property on the basis of a sale deed executed by the 3^rd defendant. The amendment sought, on the other hand, was to incorporate an absolutely new prayer to the effect that possession of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 were based on a karar and that they are hence protected by the umbrella of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act . Though, the filing of the said applications and the contentions therein to amend the written statement and to accept the documents respectively were vehemently opposed, the appellate court proceeded to consider the said applications along with the appeal and allowed the amendment application and accepted 16 photocopies of the documents into evidence. Thereafter, the matter was remanded for a fresh trial and consideration to the trial Court. This course, adopted by the appellate court, it is submitted, is erroneous and contrary to law. It is submitted that the appellate court ought to have found that the amendment sought and granted to the written statement had the effect of withdrawal from the admissions from the part of the defendants and the same would change the entire nature and character of the defence in the written statement. What was effectively done was to introduce a new cause of action in the above suit which should not have been permitted. Additionally, there was no reason tor remand the matter back and the appellate court itself ought to have disposed of the appeal on the basis of the evidence and pleadings without allowing any amendment or accepting additional documents. The appellate court also ought to have noted that since the original written statement had been filed jointly by the three defendants, the same could not have been amended at the instance of two defendants alone without the consent and acceptance of the 3^rd defendant, who was very much alive and included in the party array of the appeal, but did