Courts may reject belated written-statement amendments contradicting admissions when due diligence is not shown.

The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order allowing the Government defendants to amend their written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

The original written statement referred to revenue records for Sy. No. 104, re-Sy. No. 109, of Kodigepalli Village. The proposed amendment asserted that the records and grant concerned Sy. No. 104 of Sundrapalya Village, and that no such survey number existed in Kodigepalli Village.

The amendment application was filed after the plaintiff had tendered examination-in-chief and, according to the Court, after multiple opportunities for cross-examination of PW.1; the trial court allowed it on 17 January 2026.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in allowing an amendment to the written statement that sought to alter the defendants’ earlier position concerning the survey number and related revenue records.

2. Whether the trial court’s order warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings where appropriate for effective adjudication, but an amendment— including one to a written statement that takes an inconsistent position—does not follow as a matter of course; its permissibility depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court also treated the applicant’s explanation for the timing of the amendment, including when the proposed facts came to its knowledge, and the stage of the proceedings as relevant considerations.

The petition invoked Article 227 of the Constitution; the Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the trial court’s order.

The proposed amendment did more than clarify the written statement: it sought to recast the reference to revenue records and deny the existence of the suit survey number in Kodigepalli Village, despite the earlier pleading’s reference to records for that property.

The supporting affidavit did not explain what due diligence had been undertaken when the written statement was filed, or when and how the newly asserted facts came to the authorities’ attention.

The Court also considered the late stage of the application, the earlier delay in filing the written statement, and the procedural history concerning the plaintiff’s evidence and cross-examination. In those circumstances, it found no justification for permitting the amendment.

Although the Court considered imposing exemplary costs on the officer who filed the application, it dispensed with costs after the Additional Advocate General gave an assurance that the authorities would exercise due diligence in future.