A written-statement amendment irrelevant to the real controversy may be rejected as dilatory.

The plaintiffs brought an SCC suit against the defendant, who filed a written statement.

After the court framed points for determination, the defendant sought amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to plead that the plaintiffs owned 10–15 other commercial and residential properties in Dehradun.

The trial court rejected the application on 14 September 2026.

The defendant challenged that order under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

The suit was at the plaintiffs’ examination-in-chief stage when the amendment was sought.

1. Whether the proposed amendment concerning the plaintiffs’ other properties was necessary to determine the real controversy in the SCC suit.

2. Whether the amendment application was a dilatory measure warranting rejection.

Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the court’s discretion to allow an amendment is governed by whether it is necessary to determine the real question in controversy; Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, identifies this as the basic test.

The defendant relied on authorities recognizing a more liberal approach to amendments of written statements, including the ability to raise alternative or inconsistent pleas where no clear admission is withdrawn to the opponent’s prejudice.

The revision was brought under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

The proposed pleading concerned the plaintiffs’ ownership of other properties, but the Court held that this fact was not relevant to the real controversy in the eviction and arrears-of-rent suit.

Applying the Revajeetu Builders test, it concluded that the amendment was not necessary for effective adjudication.

The Court also relied on the timing and procedural history: the application was made when the plaintiffs’ examination-in-chief was underway, and several adjournments had been sought.

In those circumstances, it found the application to be a dilatory tactic; the defendant’s argument that the amendment did not withdraw an admission did not overcome its lack of relevance to the dispute.

Finding no error in the trial court’s order, it dismissed the civil revision.