A written-statement amendment cannot add a time-barred claim for declaration after issues are framed.

The petitioner-plaintiff brought O.S. No. 17/2022 seeking declaration of ownership and other reliefs.

The respondents-defendants denied the plaint allegations and counterclaimed for a permanent injunction.

After issues were framed and evidence led, when the suit was posted for arguments, the respondents applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend their written statement and seek declaratory relief.

The trial court allowed the application, subject to costs of Rs.1,000.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that the amendment was sought after commencement of trial without establishing due diligence.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the proposed written-statement amendments after the parties had led evidence and the suit was posted for arguments.

2. Whether the respondents could introduce a counterclaim for declaration at that stage, where the proposed relief was also found to be barred by limitation.

The Court considered the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which governs amendment of pleadings, and Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, concerning counterclaims.

It held that the respondents could not seek declaratory relief by way of counterclaim after issues had been framed.

The Court also treated the proposed declaratory amendment as barred by limitation, without identifying a specific limitation provision.

Although the application was made after evidence had been led, the Court distinguished between the proposed amendments.

It noted that the respondents had already pleaded a counterclaim for permanent injunction and paid court fee for that relief, but had inadvertently omitted it from the prayer column; it therefore upheld the amendments in items 1 and 6.

By contrast, items 2 to 5 introduced a claim for declaration of ownership.

The Court concluded that such declaratory relief could not be added as a counterclaim after issues had been framed and was barred by limitation, and found the trial court’s permission for those amendments erroneous.

The trial court’s order was modified, and I.A. No. IX was partly allowed: the respondents were permitted to make the amendments in items 1 and 6 only; the amendments in items 2 to 5 were not permitted.