A plaint amendment cannot withdraw an original plea to introduce a mutually destructive case.

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a declaration of absolute ownership over the suit properties, consequential permanent injunction, and declarations that certain partition and sale deeds, as well as a decree in O.S.No.84 of 2011, were void and not binding on her.

Her original case was that the properties were jointly possessed by her mother and maternal uncle, and that, upon the intestate death of her childless maternal uncle, his share devolved upon her.

During the suit, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint, claiming that the original pleadings contained a typographical error.

The proposed amendments sought to delete the challenge to the partition deed dated 02.03.2001, accept its validity, plead that the ‘A’ schedule property had been allotted to her mother and the ‘B’ schedule property to her maternal uncle, substitute exclusive possession for the earlier plea of joint possession, and amend the property description.

The trial Court dismissed the amendment application on the ground that the plaintiff was attempting to introduce a new case.

The plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the plaintiff could amend the plaint by withdrawing her original plea that the partition deed dated 02.03.2001 was void and instead rely upon and accept the validity of that deed?

Whether the proposed amendment constituted an impermissible withdrawal of the original case and introduction of a mutually destructive plea or a new cause of action, rather than a permissible alternative plea?

Whether the trial Court’s refusal to permit the amendment warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied the principles governing amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which amendments may generally be allowed to determine the real controversy but cannot be permitted when they fundamentally alter the nature of the suit, introduce an entirely new case, or withdraw an admission so as to prejudice the opposite party.

Relying on Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 SAR (Civ) 570, the Court recognised that an inconsistent plea may be introduced where it is pleaded in the alternative and causes no prejudice to the defendant.

It also relied on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 4256, for the rule that an amendment setting up an entirely new case or changing the nature of the suit or cause of action must be disallowed, whereas amendments concerning relief based on already pleaded facts may ordinarily be allowed.

The Court held that the proposed amendment was not a mere correction of a typographical error.

The original plaint challenged the partition deed dated 02.03.2001 as void and relied on joint possession and subsequent devolution of the maternal uncle’s share upon the plaintiff.

The amendment sought to delete those pleadings, accept the validity of the same partition deed, assert allotment of separate properties to the plaintiff’s mother and maternal uncle, and plead exclusive possession.

These were not alternative pleas maintained alongside the original case; they were mutually destructive pleas that replaced the core factual and legal basis of the suit.

Consequently, the principle in Ganesh Prasad concerning permissible alternative pleas was inapplicable.

Applying Life Insurance Corporation, the Court found that the amendment would introduce a new case and cause of action while withdrawing the plaintiff’s earlier admission, and therefore could not be permitted.

It held that the proposed amendment sought to rewrite the core averments of the plaint, withdraw the original case, and introduce a mutually destructive and substantially new case.

The trial Court had therefore correctly dismissed the amendment application, and no interference under Article 227 was warranted.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.