Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for B. K. N. Pillai VS P. Pillai...

B. K. N. Pillai VS P. Pillai - 1999 10 Supreme 229 : A party can amend their written statement to remove an already admitted fact and insert an alternative plea, provided the amendment is not inconsistent or mutually destructive with the existing pleadings. In the case described, the defendant sought to amend the written statement—originally pleading they were a lessee—to add an alternative plea that if found to be a licensee, their licence could not be revoked under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The court held that this proposed amendment was neither inconsistent nor repugnant to the original plea, but rather an extension and rebuttal of the issue framed. The court permitted the amendment, emphasizing that amendments should be allowed in the interests of justice, especially when prejudice can be compensated by costs. The mere fact of delay does not bar amendment if the other party can be compensated. Therefore, removing an admission to introduce an alternative legal defense is permissible if it does not cause irreparable prejudice and aligns with the real controversy in the suit.Checking relevance for State of Bihar VS Modern Tent House...

State of Bihar VS Modern Tent House - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 763 : A party may amend their written statement to remove an already admitted fact and insert another one, provided the amendment does not introduce a new defence, does not change the defence already taken, and does not withdraw any admission made. Such amendments ought to be allowed when they are aimed at amplifying the existing defence and do not prejudice the other party or alter the nature of the case. This is particularly applicable during the trial when the amendment is not likely to change the defence or withdraw any admission already made.Checking relevance for Baldev Singh VS Manohar Singh...

Baldev Singh VS Manohar Singh - 2006 5 Supreme 943 : A party can amend their written statement to remove an already admitted fact and insert another one, provided the amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Courts have wide and unfettered discretion under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to allow amendments to pleadings, including written statements, as long as it serves the purpose of justice and does not cause serious injustice or irreparable loss to the other side. The courts are particularly liberal in allowing amendments to written statements, as adding or altering a defence does not raise the same problems as substituting a cause of action. Inconsistent pleas can be raised in a written statement, and even if admissions were made, they may be explained or modified through amendment, especially when the new plea is an alternative or elaboration of the defence case. The mere fact that an amendment may affect prior admissions does not bar it, especially if the amendment is made with due diligence and does not prejudice the other party.Checking relevance for Gurdial Singh VS Raj Kumar Aneja...

Gurdial Singh VS Raj Kumar Aneja - 2002 1 Supreme 488 : Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a party may amend their pleadings with the leave of the Court, but such amendment must be specifically stated in the application, including what portions are to be omitted, altered, or added. The Court has discretionary power to allow amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. However, an amendment that involves withdrawal of a previously admitted fact must be clearly specified and justified. The Court may refuse amendment if it prejudices the opposite party or undermines settled rights. The practice of submitting a new written statement without specifying changes is not permissible and constitutes a procedural irregularity. Therefore, a party can amend their written statement to remove an already admitted fact and insert another, but only with the Court''''s leave and upon proper specification of the changes, and the Court may refuse such amendment if it would cause prejudice or injustice.Checking relevance for S. Malla Reddy VS Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society...

S. Malla Reddy VS Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 390 : A party cannot amend their written statement to remove an already admitted fact and insert another one, particularly when the admission has been made in a formal pleading and the court has already ruled on the matter. The court held that the defendant-appellants could not be allowed to resile from the admission made in their written statement by seeking to file a fresh written statement under Order VI Rule 16 or Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The High Court concluded that such a move would amount to an abuse of the process of the court, especially after 13 years and when the trial had already commenced and witnesses had been examined. The court emphasized that once a fact is admitted in a written statement, it cannot be withdrawn or altered without the court''''s permission, and even then, such amendment is not allowed if it prejudices the fair trial or amounts to an abuse of process.

• Amendment of Written Statements to Remove or Alter Admitted Facts - Courts generally permit amendments to written statements even after trial has commenced, provided certain conditions are met. Such amendments may involve removing previously admitted facts or introducing contradictory standpoints, but courts emphasize that amendments should not be used to change the character of the case or introduce new facts that alter its fundamental nature. For example, the court is required to bear in mind that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment ["Laxminarayan Maharana vs Mst. Kishori Maharana - Orissa"]. Courts also consider whether the amendments are necessary for effective adjudication and whether they cause prejudice to the other party.

• Timing and Justification for Amendments - Amendments filed after the commencement of trial are scrutinized for delay and whether the facts sought to be introduced could not have been pleaded earlier despite due diligence. The broad principles in mind, let us ascertain whether the defendant has justiciable cause to file an application praying for amendment ["Athokpam Mangi Singh VS Athokpam Ningol - Manipur"]. Courts tend to be cautious when amendments are sought close to or after evidence has been recorded, especially if they seek to change the case's character or deny admitted facts.

• Permissibility of Removing or Denying Previously Admitted Facts - Courts have held that amendments aimed at denying facts admitted in pleadings are permissible if they are necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. However, the question whether certain admissions made in the written statement were sought to be withdrawn is concerned, we find, as noted earlier, there was no admission in the written statement from which it could be said that by filing an application for amendment of the written statement... ["Debobrata Mondal VS Pijush Banerjee - Calcutta"]. Courts generally allow amendments to clarify or correct pleadings unless they are used to unjustly resile from admissions or to introduce inconsistent standpoints.

• Impact of Amendments on the Character of the Suit - Amendments should not turn the suit into one of a different character or fundamentally alter its nature. The proposed amendments would not in effect turn the suit from one character into a suit of another and inconsistent character ["M.D.PASUPATHY LAKSHMANNA vs PADMAVATHY - Madras"]. Courts assess whether the amendments are merely clarificatory or whether they seek to change the core issues, with the latter being less likely to be permitted.

• Legal Principles and Limitations - The Code of Civil Procedure (Order VI Rule 17) provides broad discretion to courts to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings as long as they are just and do not cause undue prejudice. However, amendments filed after evidence is closed or when they amount to a belated attempt to resile from admissions are generally disallowed. There is huge delay in filing the amendment to the written statement and already the matter is posted for recording of evidence ["H JAYAMMA vs T VIJAYA - Karnataka"].

Analysis and Conclusion:A party can seek to amend his written statement to remove or alter an admitted fact, but such amendments are subject to judicial discretion. Courts tend to permit amendments that are clarificatory or necessary for proper adjudication, especially if filed before or during the trial, and if they do not fundamentally change the character of the case. However, amendments aimed at resiling from admissions made earlier are scrutinized carefully, and late amendments or those causing prejudice are generally disallowed. The key considerations include timing, justification, and whether the amendments serve justice without unjustly prejudice the opposing party ["ASHOK MANOHAR CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS vs TANAJI MADHUKAR CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS - Bombay"].