Sustainability of a defense on merits cannot be evaluated while deciding an application for amendment of pleadings.

The respondents (plaintiffs) instituted SCC Case No. 1 of 2021 for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction against the petitioner (defendant)

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs on 10.05.2023, holding that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was inapplicable to the property

The petitioner challenged this via SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023

During the pendency of the revision, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the written statement to include clarificatory and alternative pleas regarding the tenancy

The Revisional Court rejected the application on 27.03.2024, citing the belated stage and the perceived lack of merit in the proposed defense

The petitioner subsequently invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227

1. Whether the Revisional Court committed a jurisdictional error by rejecting the amendment application by examining the merits of the proposed plea

2. Whether the standards for allowing an amendment to a written statement differ from those applied to a plaint, particularly at the revisional stage

3. Whether the proposed amendment was necessary for the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties

The Court primarily applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs the amendment of pleadings to ensure the determination of the real questions in controversy

It relied on the principle that amendments to written statements should be treated more liberally than those to plaints, allowing for alternative or even inconsistent pleas, provided they do not withdraw a clear admission or cause irretrievable prejudice

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the limits of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, noting that interference is warranted when a subordinate court fails to apply settled legal principles, resulting in a miscarriage of justice

The High Court observed that the Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the sustainability and merits of the defense at the amendment stage, which is impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

The Court reasoned that the proposed amendment was clarificatory and defensive, intended to supplement the existing stand rather than introduce a new cause of action or displace the foundational defense

Regarding the "due diligence" proviso, the Court found the petitioner’s explanation for the delay to be bona fide and noted that the Revisional Court had failed to record any categorical finding of mala fides or lack of diligence

Crucially, the Court noted that since the matter was at the revisional stage, allowing the amendment would not necessitate reopening concluded evidence, and the respondents could be protected by filing consequential pleadings

The High Court concluded that the lower court's restrictive approach was inconsistent with settled liberal principles of pleading

The Court held that the amendment was necessary for a complete adjudication of the dispute and that its denial would curtail the petitioner’s right to a full defense

The Court ordered that the amendment application be allowed, directing the petitioner to carry out the amendment within a timeframe fixed by the Revisional Court, and granting the respondents the opportunity to file consequential pleadings

The Revisional Court was directed to decide the SCC Revision expeditiously and independently of any observations made on the merits