Defendants may file additional written statements addressing amendments carried out pursuant to an allowed pleading amendment.

The dispute arose from Original Suit No. 18 of 2003, described as a partition suit among coparceners, pending before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal West-I.

During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff, Chakpram Kulla, died and was substituted by his five legal heirs.

The plaintiff thereafter filed Judicial Miscellaneous Case No. 121 of 2017 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the plaint.

The trial court, after contest, allowed the amendment application by order dated 4 April 2018, noting that the suit involved a remand and de novo trial.

The defendants challenged the order through the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the trial court’s order dated 4 April 2018 allowing the plaintiff’s application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be sustained?

Whether the revision petitioners should be permitted to file additional written statements addressing the amended portions of the plaint?

What procedural directions should govern the further conduct of the long-pending partition suit after completion of the amended pleadings?

The Court applied Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which governs amendment of pleadings and permits the court to allow amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, subject to procedural and statutory limitations.

The revision was considered under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that, where a plaint is amended, the opposite party must have an opportunity to file an additional written statement in answer to the amended pleadings.

Following completion of the amended pleadings, the trial court is required to frame any necessary additional issues and adjudicate the suit on the basis of the pleadings and evidence, without expressing any view on the merits.

Although the revision petition initially challenged the order permitting amendment of the plaint, both contesting parties agreed to resolve the matter by consent.

The petitioners accepted that the amendments could be carried out, while insisting that their substantive and procedural rights to respond through additional written statements be preserved.

In view of this consensus, the Court sustained the trial court’s order, directed the plaintiff to carry out the amendments in accordance with procedural requirements, and preserved the petitioners’ right to file additional written statements.

Since the suit was a decades-old partition proceeding involving a remand and de novo trial, the Court further directed the trial court to frame additional issues, proceed with the trial in accordance with law, and expedite the matter.

The impugned order dated 4 April 2018 allowing amendment of the plaint was sustained.

The plaintiff was directed to implement the amendments in accordance with procedural requirements, after which the revision petitioners were granted liberty to file additional written statements addressing the amended portions of the plaint.

The trial court was directed to frame additional issues, conduct the trial on the basis of the pleadings and evidence, and expedite the suit, subject to older civil suits pending before it.

No opinion was expressed on the merits, and there was no order as to costs.