The court upheld that new pleadings could not be introduced via amendment due to procedural constraints as stated in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order in I.A.No.23/2025 in O.S.No.15/2008 of Additional Subordinate Court, Palakkad. The petitioner is the 1^st defendant. Based on an agreement for sale, the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance. The said suit was dismissed and confirmed in appeal. The respondents thereafter filed a suit for recovery of the property from the petitioner. The suit was filed in 2008. The petitioner had filed written statement setting up independent title over the property. The written statement was originally filed on 10.04.2008. Six years later, on 30.06.2014, an additional written statement was filed alleging that the decree in O.S.No.337/1989 was obtained by fraud. The suit was taken for evidence. The 1^st defendant was examined on 21.08.2025 based on the proof affidavit filed on 13.08.2025 and additional proof affidavit dated 21.08.2025. No plea regarding the protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was set up till that stage. It is thereafter that an amendment was sought in the written statement by including a plea of protection under of the . The court below by a detailed judgment rejected the plea finding that the attempt is to introduce new pleadings by way of additional written statement which could not have been brought in by amendment due to the rigor of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. No grounds made out. The original petition is dismissed.

Sd/-