A written-statement amendment withdrawing a clear admission is impermissible, especially when sought post-trial without due diligence.

The respondent-landlord brought a Small Cause Court suit seeking eviction and arrears of rent.

The defendants filed a written statement, and the plaintiff’s evidence-in-chief and cross-examination had taken place.

During the defendants’ cross-examination, they applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend their written statement, including to state that defendant no. 1 had never been a tenant or occupant of the disputed property.

The trial court rejected the application, and the defendants challenged that order under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

Whether the proposed amendment to the written statement would withdraw an earlier admission that defendant no. 1 was a tenant

Whether the proposed amendment was barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC because it was sought after commencement of trial and without demonstrating due diligence

Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 provides the basis for the revision.

Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, amendments may be allowed to determine the real questions in controversy; after commencement of trial, however, the applicant must satisfy the court that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier.

Courts generally take a more liberal approach to amendments of written statements than to amendments of plaints, and new or inconsistent defences may be permissible (Usha Balashaheb Swami v. Kiran Appaso Swami, (2007) 5 SCC 602, paras 19–22, pp. 4–6).

That latitude does not ordinarily permit an amendment that withdraws a clear admission so as to displace the plaintiff’s case and cause prejudice (Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, (1998) 1 SCC 278, paras 6, 10–12, pp. 9–12; M/s Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. M/s Lodha Ram & Co., (1976) 4 SCC 320, paras 9–10, pp. 12–13).

The post-trial due-diligence requirement was also addressed in Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N., (2006) 12 SCC 1, para 55.

The amendment would have added that defendant no. 1 had never been a tenant or occupant of the property, thereby contradicting the existing admission and the tenancy agreement on record.

The Court also noted that a coordinate Bench had already found a landlord–tenant relationship between the parties in Civil Revision No. 56 of 2026, and treated that finding as having attained finality.

Although written-statement amendments are generally approached liberally, this proposed amendment would withdraw an admission and materially alter the position on which the plaintiff’s case rested.

Further, it was sought at the stage of the defendants’ cross-examination, and the defendants had not shown that due diligence prevented them from raising the matter earlier.

The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 therefore applied.

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