LI Network
Published on: January 24, 2024 at 11:00 IST
The Patna High Court has held that the amendment of written statements can be permitted at any stage of legal proceedings if it is deemed necessary to determine the authentic points of contention between the parties.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha, presiding over the case, remarked, “I fail to understand how the aforesaid amendment is going to cause prejudice to the plaintiffs/respondents. Moreover, if the amendment is not allowed, two sets of pleadings, which are contradictory to each other, would come on record and cause unnecessary confusion and will cause hindrance in just and proper disposal of the dispute before the learned lower court.
Moreover, it cannot be said to be withdrawal of admission because what has been stated in the additional written statement was with regard to certain issues involving succession and ownership rights of a female Hindu. It cannot be considered admission and the defendant is within his rights to withdraw the same.”
In light of this, the Court highlighted that “the plain language of Order VI Rule 17 shows amendment can be allowed at any stage as may be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.”
The case revolved around a petition challenging an order that partially allowed the amendment of the written statement, additional written statement, and counterclaim. The dispute originated from a partition suit between the petitioner and respondent no.1, who were full brothers, with respondent nos. 2 and 3 being the sons of respondent no.1.
The petitioner sought amendments to rectify inadvertent mistakes in the pleadings, particularly concerning the ownership of certain properties.
The impugned order permitted some amendments but rejected others, prompting the petitioner’s appeal. Specifically, the petitioner sought the deletion of a portion of paragraph no. 3 of his written statement.
The crucial question for the Court was whether the proposed amendment, aiming to delete a substantial portion of the written statement, could be considered as withdrawal of the statement and if it would adversely affect the other party.
The Court acknowledged the merit in the argument that the material sought to be deleted pertained to a legal point and should not have been part of the pleadings originally.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the proposed amendment should be allowed, granting approval to the entire amendment petition, subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
Case Title: Yogendra Bahadur Singh vs Surendra Bahadur Singh & Ors.