Irrelevant amendments to the WS are not to be allowed

 


Shubham Budhiraja[1]

 


A filed a suit for recovery of rent and possession against B. Later suit was withdrawn and fresh commercial suit filed. B filed application for amendment of WS to incorporate changes such as to correct typo error in suit property, etc. The trial court rejected the application and allowed plaintiff application for judgment on admission. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court affirmed the order and held that:[2] 

 

(i)                 The provision under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of pleading was restored by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 with certain modifications. Post amendment, no application for amendment of pleadings shall, be allowed unless the Court concludes that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

 

(ii)                In the case of B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai, AIR 2000 SC 614 (616), it has been categorically observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that, all amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for the determination of the real controversy in the Suit provided. The proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action based on which the original lis was raised or defense was taken.

 

(iii)              The principles applicable to the amendment of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendment of the written statement. The Courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written-statement.

 

(iv)              the first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the Court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. On the other hand, if the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy “between the parties, the amendment should be allowed even though the Court may think the party seeking the amendment will not be able to prove the amended plea”. This is the basic test that governs the Court‟s unchartered powers of amendment of pleadings. “No amendment should be allowed when it does not satisfy this cardinal test”. [Narsing Prosad v. Steel Products Ltd. AIR 1953 Cal 15 (17)].

 

(v)                Once the facts to be amended are already mentioned in the written statement, there is no rationale in seeking the amendment of the written statement to incorporate the same facts but in different words. 

 



[1] Advocate, Delhi High Court [ACS, BCOM(H), LLB], Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com

[2] Dhruv Kumar v. Raj, CM(M) 1821/2023, Delhi High Court

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE: THE UNFERTILE CROP

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW