Courts should adopt a more liberal approach when allowing amendments to a written statement compared to a plaint, as amending a defense generally results in less prejudice to the other party.

ORDER

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2025 passed by the II Civil Judge, Senior Division, District - Khargone, whereby the application filed by the petitioner / defendant under Order VI Rule 17 for the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment in the written submission has been rejected.

02. Facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.1 / plaintiff has field a civil suit against the petitioner / defendant for declaration of sale deed dated 09.02.2022 as void so also for permanent injunction.

03. Thereafter, defendant No.1 submitted a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

04. During the pendency of the civil suit, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w section 151 of the CPC seeking amendment in the written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a reply to the said application and a prayer was made for dismissal of the application.

05. Vide order dated 22.11.2025, the learned trial Court has rejected the application of defendant No.1. Hence, the present miscellaneous petition is before this Court.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application without taking into account the nature of the amendment. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain v/s Manoj Kumar & Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 2544. Heavy reliance has been placed on paragraphs 10 & 11 of the said judgment and the same are reproduced below:-

''10. At this stage we may remind ourselves that law is now well settled that an amendment of plaint and amendment of written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. Adding a new ground of defense or substituting or altering a defense does not raise the same problem as adding, altering, substituting a new cause of action (see Baldev Singh and others Vs Manohar singh and Another AIR 2006 SC 2832).

11. Similar view has also been expressed in Usha Bala Saheb Swami and others Vs Kiran Appaso Swami and others AIR 2007 SC 1663. It is equally well settled that in the case of amendment of a written statement, the court would be more liberal in allowing then that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in former than in the latter and addition of a new ground of defense or substituting or altering a defense or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can also be allowed.''

07. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the impugned order dated 22.11.2025 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is hereby allowed and the petitioner / defendant No.1 is permitted to incorporate the proposed amendment in the written statement.

08. With the aforesaid, Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed & disposed of.