Amendment of a written statement is permissible to correct inconsistencies without withdrawing genuine admissions.

The appellant, one of the daughters and legal heirs of late Krishan Lal, instituted a suit for partition and rendition of accounts concerning properties alleged to form part of his estate. She claimed a 1/7th share in the properties, notwithstanding that several stood in the names of his widow or sons.

Respondent nos.1–5, in their written statement, placed certain properties under the heading “Properties in Which the Plaintiff Has Received Share” and stated that respondent no.1 remained the proprietor of “M/s Krishan Lal & Sons”. On that basis, the appellant filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking judgment on admissions.

Approximately six months later, respondent nos.1–5 sought amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. They proposed to replace the relevant heading with “Properties in which Mutation Entry has been made in name of Plaintiff,” relocate the property corresponding to prayer clause 1(g) under the heading “Properties owned by Defendant No.3 Mr. Sunil Kumar,” and delete the statement regarding respondent no.1’s continued proprietorship of the firm.

The learned Single Judge allowed the amendment and disposed of the appellant’s application under Order XII Rule 6 as not pressed. The appellant challenged that order, contending that the amendment withdrew admissions regarding her share and caused substantial prejudice.

The respondents maintained that the changes corrected typographical or internal inconsistencies and did not alter the substance of their defence.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC?

2. Whether the permitted amendment withdrew any genuine, unequivocal admission in favour of the appellant or caused prejudice warranting appellate interference?

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which confers a wide discretionary power to permit amendments necessary for determining the real controversy, subject to the amendment being bona fide and not causing irremediable prejudice, changing the nature of the case, or withdrawing a genuine admission made in the opposite party’s favour.

Relying on B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai, (2000) 1 SCC 712, the Court held that amendments to written statements should generally be approached liberally; errors or mistakes may be corrected, but an amendment cannot introduce a mutually destructive defence or unjustifiably withdraw a genuine admission.

The Court further applied Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, under which the Court must consider whether the amendment is imperative for effective adjudication, bona fide, compensable by costs, likely to prevent injustice or multiplicity of proceedings, and whether it fundamentally changes the nature of the case.

The Court also noted that mutation entries do not, by themselves, conclusively determine title, and that an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary.

The Court held that, in relation to the properties covered by prayer clauses 1(f) and 1(q), the amendment merely changed the description from properties in which the appellant had “received share” to properties in which mutation entries had been made in her name.

The underlying particulars, including the mutation of shares in favour of the appellant and other legal heirs, remained unchanged; therefore, no substantive admission or accrued right was withdrawn.

With respect to the property covered by prayer clause 1(g), the original written statement itself identified respondent no.3 as the owner and traced the title through the sale deeds dated 06.09.1988 and 18.06.2012.

Its earlier placement under the heading concerning properties in which the appellant had received a share was treated as an internal inconsistency, which the amendment merely corrected.

The Court consequently found no new defence, no fundamental alteration of the suit, and no prejudice incapable of being addressed through costs. The appellant’s entitlement, if any, remained open for determination at trial.

The Court upheld the learned Single Judge’s order dated 20.02.2024 allowing I.A. No.7919/2019 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

It held that the amendment did not withdraw any genuine admission, did not alter the nature or character of the suit, and did not cause legally cognizable prejudice to the appellant.

The appellant’s claim to a 1/7th share was left open for adjudication in the partition suit.

Pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.