Written statement amendments withdrawing categorical admissions to displace the plaintiff's case are legally impermissible.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration, partition, and injunction regarding a property in Green Park Main, New Delhi, claiming it devolved equally upon the three siblings after their mother's death in 2016

Respondent No. 2 (Defendant No. 2) filed a Written Statement on 03.05.2019, supporting the Appellant’s case, admitting the property should be divided equally, and denying knowledge of any Will

In 2023, after a four-year lapse, Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC (I.A. No. 16481/2023) to amend his Written Statement to assert that a 2014 Will was genuine, the property was the mother's self-acquired estate, and the suit should be dismissed

The learned Single Judge allowed the amendment on 24.11.2025, holding that trial had not commenced and a liberal approach was required

The Appellant challenged this order via the present appeal

1. Whether the court is justified in permitting a defendant to amend a Written Statement to withdraw clear, categorical admissions and substitute them with a diametrically opposite defense after a significant delay.

The court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the amendment of pleadings

It relied on the principle established in Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co. (1976), which holds that amendments displacing a plaintiff by withdrawing admissions in a written statement are impermissible

While acknowledging the liberal standard for amending written statements per Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh (2006), the court emphasized the limitations set in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal (1998) and LIC of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022), which mandate that amendments should be refused if they seek to withdraw a clear admission that confers a valuable right upon the opposite party or causes irretrievable prejudice

The Court observed that Respondent No. 2’s original Written Statement contained unequivocal admissions regarding equal inheritance and supported the prayer for partition

The 2023 amendment did not merely clarify a position but completely displaced these admissions to align with Respondent No. 1

The Court reasoned that once an admission is made in a Written Statement, it constitutes substantive evidence and creates a "valuable right" for the Plaintiff; allowing its withdrawal would cause irretrievable prejudice

The Court rejected Respondent No. 2’s plea of "mistaken belief," noting that the facts surrounding the Will were within his knowledge since 2019

Furthermore, the Court found the four-year delay significant, concluding that the amendment was not bona fide and that the Single Judge erred by failing to consider the legal bar against withdrawing categorical admissions

The Court held that while procedural rules are meant to advance justice, they cannot be used to resile from solemn admissions made on oath to the detriment of the plaintiff

Consequently, I.A. No. 16481/2023 was dismissed, and the suit was ordered to proceed based on the original Written Statement filed by Respondent No. 2 on 03.05.2019