Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Courts are more liberal in allowing amendments to written statements than to plaints because the question of prejudice is less significant in the former case ["Kiran, W/o Rajinder Singh Jamwal VS Balbir Singh Jamwal, S/o Late th. Mukand Singh - Jammu and Kashmir"]>["Kiran, W/o Rajinder Singh Jamwal VS Balbir Singh Jamwal, S/o Late th. Mukand Singh - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["Suresh VS Mange (since deceased) through his LRs - Punjab and Haryana"]>["Suresh VS Mange (since deceased) through his LRs - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Firoz Uddin VS Anwar Uddin - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 660"]>["Firoz Uddin VS Anwar Uddin - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 660"], ["Mahendra Pratap Singh VS Rama Raman - Allahabad"]>["Mahendra Pratap Singh VS Rama Raman - Allahabad"], INDOR00000021188>INDOR00000021188, ["Bidyut Lata Bardhan vs Sanjukta Bardhan@Ray - Orissa"]>["Bidyut Lata Bardhan vs Sanjukta Bardhan@Ray - Orissa"], ["SRI. CHOWDESHWARI SEVA TRUST (REGD) vs SRI. CHAYA PRAKASH - Karnataka"]>["SRI. CHOWDESHWARI SEVA TRUST (REGD) vs SRI. CHAYA PRAKASH - Karnataka"], ["Kalyan Swain vs Ganeshram Sahu - Orissa"]>["Kalyan Swain vs Ganeshram Sahu - Orissa"], ["DR. T.S. UMA MURALIDHAR vs SRI. R. LAKSHMAN - Karnataka"]>["DR. T.S. UMA MURALIDHAR vs SRI. R. LAKSHMAN - Karnataka"], ["Rajat Chowdhury VS Akhil Haoladar - Calcutta"]>["Rajat Chowdhury VS Akhil Haoladar - Calcutta"], ["Brahmaputra Tele Production Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By Its Editor In Chief Sri Monoj Goswami vs Dwipayan Das, S/o. Lt. Sachindra Chandra Das - Gauhati"]>["Brahmaputra Tele Production Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By Its Editor In Chief Sri Monoj Goswami vs Dwipayan Das, S/o. Lt. Sachindra Chandra Das - Gauhati"], ["Baijat Mallick VS Entaj Mallick - Calcutta"]>["Baijat Mallick VS Entaj Mallick - Calcutta"], ["Kashinath @ Kallu VS Rajeev Kumar Mishra - Allahabad"]>["Kashinath @ Kallu VS Rajeev Kumar Mishra - Allahabad"], ["Kamlesh Rani Gupta VS Firm Sevak Industries Shahjahanpur - Allahabad"]>["Kamlesh Rani Gupta VS Firm Sevak Industries Shahjahanpur - Allahabad"], ["H JAYAMMA vs T VIJAYA - Karnataka"]>["H JAYAMMA vs T VIJAYA - Karnataka"], ["Mahesh Chand Sidh vs Kumar Satyam - Patna"]>["Mahesh Chand Sidh vs Kumar Satyam - Patna"]**.
Several judgments emphasize that amendments to written statements should be permitted liberally, especially when made before the commencement of trial, as the opposing party can generally be compensated through costs, and the amendments do not typically alter the core case significantly ["Kiran, W/o Rajinder Singh Jamwal VS Balbir Singh Jamwal, S/o Late th. Mukand Singh - Jammu and Kashmir"]>["Kiran, W/o Rajinder Singh Jamwal VS Balbir Singh Jamwal, S/o Late th. Mukand Singh - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["Suresh VS Mange (since deceased) through his LRs - Punjab and Haryana"]>["Suresh VS Mange (since deceased) through his LRs - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Firoz Uddin VS Anwar Uddin - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 660"]>["Firoz Uddin VS Anwar Uddin - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 660"], ["Mahendra Pratap Singh VS Rama Raman - Allahabad"]>["Mahendra Pratap Singh VS Rama Raman - Allahabad"], INDOR00000021188>INDOR00000021188, ["Bidyut Lata Bardhan vs Sanjukta Bardhan@Ray - Orissa"]>["Bidyut Lata Bardhan vs Sanjukta Bardhan@Ray - Orissa"], ["SRI. CHOWDESHWARI SEVA TRUST (REGD) vs SRI. CHAYA PRAKASH - Karnataka"]>["SRI. CHOWDESHWARI SEVA TRUST (REGD) vs SRI. CHAYA PRAKASH - Karnataka"], ["Kalyan Swain vs Ganeshram Sahu - Orissa"]>["Kalyan Swain vs Ganeshram Sahu - Orissa"], ["DR. T.S. UMA MURALIDHAR vs SRI. R. LAKSHMAN - Karnataka"]>["DR. T.S. UMA MURALIDHAR vs SRI. R. LAKSHMAN - Karnataka"], ["Rajat Chowdhury VS Akhil Haoladar - Calcutta"]>["Rajat Chowdhury VS Akhil Haoladar - Calcutta"], ["Brahmaputra Tele Production Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By Its Editor In Chief Sri Monoj Goswami vs Dwipayan Das, S/o. Lt. Sachindra Chandra Das - Gauhati"]>["Brahmaputra Tele Production Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By Its Editor In Chief Sri Monoj Goswami vs Dwipayan Das, S/o. Lt. Sachindra Chandra Das - Gauhati"], ["Kashinath @ Kallu VS Rajeev Kumar Mishra - Allahabad"]>["Kashinath @ Kallu VS Rajeev Kumar Mishra - Allahabad"].
The Supreme Court has explicitly observed that courts should adopt a liberal approach towards amendments of written statements, noting that delay alone is not a sufficient reason to deny such amendments, and emphasizing that amendments should not be refused on hypertechnical grounds ["A MOHAMMED RASOOL @ MUJEEB PASHA vs SMT. VAGEESWARI S - Karnataka"]>["A MOHAMMED RASOOL @ MUJEEB PASHA vs SMT. VAGEESWARI S - Karnataka"], ["Firoz Uddin VS Anwar Uddin - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 660"]>["Firoz Uddin VS Anwar Uddin - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 660"], ["Rajat Chowdhury VS Akhil Haoladar - Calcutta"]>["Rajat Chowdhury VS Akhil Haoladar - Calcutta"], ["SRI. CHOWDESHWARI SEVA TRUST (REGD) vs SRI. CHAYA PRAKASH - Karnataka"]>["SRI. CHOWDESHWARI SEVA TRUST (REGD) vs SRI. CHAYA PRAKASH - Karnataka"], ["Bidyut Lata Bardhan vs Sanjukta Bardhan@Ray - Orissa"]>["Bidyut Lata Bardhan vs Sanjukta Bardhan@Ray - Orissa"].
Importantly, amendments that change the nature of the case or set up an entirely new cause of action should be disallowed, but otherwise, courts are encouraged to permit amendments liberally to facilitate justice ["Kiran, W/o Rajinder Singh Jamwal VS Balbir Singh Jamwal, S/o Late th. Mukand Singh - Jammu and Kashmir"]>["Kiran, W/o Rajinder Singh Jamwal VS Balbir Singh Jamwal, S/o Late th. Mukand Singh - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["Suresh VS Mange (since deceased) through his LRs - Punjab and Haryana"]>["Suresh VS Mange (since deceased) through his LRs - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Kalyan Swain vs Ganeshram Sahu - Orissa"]>["Kalyan Swain vs Ganeshram Sahu - Orissa"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent judicial stance across the cited cases is that, unlike plaint amendments, courts have a broader discretion to allow amendments to written statements. This liberal approach is justified on the grounds that prejudice is less likely, and justice is better served by permitting amendments unless they fundamentally alter the case or cause undue prejudice. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have reinforced this principle, emphasizing avoiding hypertechnicality and favoring flexibility in amendments to written statements.
In civil litigation, the ability to amend pleadings is crucial for ensuring justice is served without being hindered by procedural technicalities. A common query among legal practitioners and litigants is: relevant citation stating that unlike plaint courts are at liberty to take liberal approach in the case of written statement amendment? The answer lies in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which empowers courts with broad discretion. However, courts typically adopt a more liberal approach toward amendments in written statements compared to plaints, as prejudice to the plaintiff is less likely. This blog post delves into the legal framework, key judicial precedents, and practical considerations. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is the cornerstone provision:
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Firoz Uddin VS Anwar Uddin - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 660
This grants courts wide powers to permit amendments, prioritizing substantive justice over rigidity. The proviso adds a check: post-trial commencement amendments require proof of due diligence. Sadananda Mutika VS Ladi Trinath Rao - 2015 0 Supreme(Ori) 424TEJ BAHADUR VS FASIUDEEN - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2071
Courts interpret this liberally for written statements. As held in Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co. (1976) 4 SCC 320, amendments to written statements are permitted more liberally than to plaints, allowing even inconsistent or alternative pleas if no uncompensable prejudice arises. Joginder Kaur VS Mit Mohan Singh Kahlon And Another - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4064
Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, have consistently favored liberality for written statement amendments:
Recent cases reinforce this. In one ruling, courts must take a more liberal view in allowing amendment of written statement than of plaint, as prejudice operates with less rigor. Venco Research and Breeding Farm Ltd. VS Rastriya Shramik Aghadi - 2013 Supreme(Bom) 827Sumita Samanta VS Nand Kishore Jaiswal The Supreme Court in Baldev Singh (2006) noted: wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the court... courts should allow amendment... unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused. Most. Aziz Fatima @ Nemat VS Md. Khursheed Ahmad @ Dr. Naseem - 2009 Supreme(Pat) 238
Another decision states: in the case of amendment of written statement, the Courts are inclined to grant liberty in allowing the amendment of written statement than of plaint and inconsistent plea can be raised by the defendants. M. Devi VS D. Soodamani - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2748
For instance, amendments correcting clerical errors (e.g., khasra numbers) are allowed liberally under Section 153 CPC, even at trial, if no injustice results. Asha Rani VS Vandana Rani - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 358
Despite liberality, courts exercise caution:- New cause of action: Not allowed if it changes the suit's nature.- Bad faith or delay without diligence: Proviso rejects if facts could have been raised earlier. Sadananda Mutika VS Ladi Trinath Rao - 2015 0 Supreme(Ori) 424Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd. VS Rajendra Mehta - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 967- Irreparable prejudice: Rare for written statements but possible.
In Andhra Bank v. ABN AMRO Bank (relied upon in later cases), amendments aren't judged on merits alone; delay isn't a bar if justified. However, lack of explanation for omission post-commencement leads to rejection. Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd. VS Rajendra Mehta - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 967
Defendants enjoy greater flexibility: Even inconsistent or alternative pleas can be raised by the defendant in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in the case of plaint. Most. Aziz Fatima @ Nemat VS Md. Khursheed Ahmad @ Dr. Naseem - 2009 Supreme(Pat) 238 This stems from the defensive nature of written statements, reducing prejudice. Courts allow additional written statements without wiping out prior admissions, provided no bad faith. M. Devi VS D. Soodamani - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2748
In an eviction suit, amendment adding plaintiff's new business was allowed as it addressed real controversy, but space availability plea rejected for lack of diligence. Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd. VS Rajendra Mehta - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 967
Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, courts possess broad discretion, exercised more liberally for written statements than plaints. Landmark cases like Modi Spinning and Baldev Singh affirm this, allowing defenses, inconsistencies, and corrections to resolve true disputes. However, due diligence remains key post-trial start.
Key Takeaways:- Seek amendments early with diligence.- Justify necessity for real issues.- Expect liberality unless prejudice or bad faith evident.
Sources Cited: Pankaj Oswal vs Aruna Oswal - Delhi (2019)Sadananda Mutika VS Ladi Trinath Rao - 2015 0 Supreme(Ori) 424Joginder Kaur VS Mit Mohan Singh Kahlon And Another - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4064Asha Rani VS Vandana Rani - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 358Firoz Uddin VS Anwar Uddin - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 660TEJ BAHADUR VS FASIUDEEN - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2071Venco Research and Breeding Farm Ltd. VS Rastriya Shramik Aghadi - 2013 Supreme(Bom) 827Most. Aziz Fatima @ Nemat VS Md. Khursheed Ahmad @ Dr. Naseem - 2009 Supreme(Pat) 238Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd. VS Rajendra Mehta - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 967M. Devi VS D. Soodamani - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2748Sumita Samanta VS Nand Kishore Jaiswal
This approach ensures procedural fairness aligns with substantive justice. For tailored advice, engage a legal professional.
#CPCAmendment, #WrittenStatement, #LegalInsights
case of amendment of the written statement, the Courts should be more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case. ... Ajay Vaid, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant vehemently argued that the courts should be liberal in allowing the amendment of the written #....
Such being the settled law, we must hold that in the case of amendment of a written statement, the courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case [see B.K. Narayana Pillai v. ... As we have already noted herein earlier that in allowing the amendment of the written statement#HL_END....
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Narayana Pillai's case supra, has observed that though the principle for considering the application for amendment is equally applicable to amendment of plaint as well as the written statement, the courts should normally be liberal in permitting amendment of written statement ... He submits that in the case of B.K.NARAYANA PILLAI VS PARAMESWARAMN ....
Such being the settled law, we must hold that in the case of amendment of a written statement, the courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case [see B.K. Narayana Pillai v. ... As we have already noted herein earlier that in allowing the amendment of the written statement#HL_END....
The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. ... Facts of the case about the date of filing of suit, written statement and amendment application are not disputed. 7. ... (XI) Where the #HL_S....
For correcting arithmetical or clerical mistake, the approach of the court should be liberal, particularly when such amendments are permitted after the decision of the case. In the present case, the suit is pending at the trial stage. 3. ... (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the #HL_STAR....
No.60 of 2018 is set aside and the prayer for amendment sought by the Defendants is allowed. It is further observed that the Plaintiffs are at liberty to take appropriate steps, if any, in reply to the amended written statement and the counter claim. 8. ... Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have ....
Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. ... Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment m....
It is true that the prayer for amendment of pleadings has to be dealt with a liberal approach. In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. ... Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. ... Where the amendment changes the nature of the ....
At the time of discussing the amendment sought by the plaintiff, the court has to take liberal view. Here in this case, the defendants have specifically stated in the objection statement that the amendment sought by the plaintiff is barred by time. ... (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of all the defendants including the petitioner - defendant No.9 to file their additional written statements to the amended plaint and by taking up....
It is further held in that judgment that in the case of amendment of written statement, the Courts are inclined to grant liberty in allowing the amendment of written statement than of plaint and inconsistent plea can be raised by the defendants in the written statement. As stated supra, in the case of receipt of additional written statement, the admission made earlier is not wiped out and is going to be kept intact and therefore, even though a different stand is taken in the additional written statement, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. Therefore, from the abov....
The Courts are, therefore, required to take more liberal view in allowing amendment of written statement than of plaint and question of prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigour in former than in latter case. The Courts while deciding the application for amendment should not adopt a hypertechnical approach.
This is moreso when application for amendment in the plaint and written statement cannot be decided with the same yardstick. It is accordingly prayed that impugned order dated 24th March, 2006 may be set aside by allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. For amendment in the written statement, the Courts are required to take liberal approach whereas same yardstick may not apply for amendment in the plaint.
Accordingly, in the case of amendment of written statement, the courts are inclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment of the written statement. than of plaint and question of prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigour in the former than in the latter case.” Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action.
Even inconsistent or alternative pleas can be raised by the defendant in the written statement although the same, may not be permissible in the case of plaint. Vs. Manohar Singh & Another (2006) VI SCC page 498 wherein the Supreme Court has held that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper and the courts, thus, should allow amendment of the pleadings unless a serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the either side. In the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
