Written Statement Jointly Filed Can't Be Amended At Behest Of One Defendant, Without Consent From Others: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a written statement jointly filed by various defendants cannot be amended at the behest of one of defendants without express consent from other defendants who had jointly filed the written statement.

The bench of Justice Jayant Banerji held that “where a written statement is jointly filed by a group of defendants, it cannot be amended at the behest of one or more such defendants unless the other defendants who are signatories to the joint written statement, expressly consent to the amendments sought.”

The Court further held that: “Even in cases where a ground of defence is raised in an amendment application that appears to reflect the interest of each of the defendants who had filed the joint written statement, the consent of those defendants, who had not moved that amendment application, would be required.”

The Court held that there may arise situations where the defendant seeking amendment in pleadings may jeopardize the rights and interests of other defendants. Thus, the Court held that while deciding an amendment application to a joint written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court must first decide whether the amendment application has been jointly filed by defendants who had signed the written submissions.

“If the Courts are not vigilant to nip in the bud such a situation from arising, several complications may arise in the future that may complicate issues and unnecessarily delay the outcome of the suit/proceedings including multiplicity of legal proceedings,” it stated.

Factual Background

Seven family members pooled in resources for constructing godowns and renting them out on land owned by Mathura Prasad Kedia in Gorakhpur and other places. It was stipulated that the land construction and renting activities shall be on a co-ownership basis with a clear stipulation that each one of the parties to the agreement and/or their successors and assigns shall have such proportions therein as specified in the agreement.

In 1996, after the death of Mathura Prasad Kedia, another agreement was executed between the parties where some parties took certain unilateral activities. Aggrieved, petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction against respondent-defendants to prevent them from renting properties and entering into agreements on their own. A joint written statement was filed by the respondent-defendants.

Respondent No. 1 was only a signatory to the later agreement whereas respondent no. 2 was a signatory to both agreements. Respondent-defendant no. 1 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement on grounds that reference to the will of Mathura Prasad Kedia was necessary for deciding the suit which had not been made by the previous lawyer.

The petitioner-plaintiff objected to the amendment on the grounds that a new defence was being set up based on fraudulent will under the garb of the amendment which was not permissible. The amendment application was rejected by the Trial Court. The defendants filed a civil revision against the order which was allowed, and the application was remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration of the amendment application. This order passed in the civil revision has been challenged before the High Court.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the amendments sought to be made were contrary to the averments made in the written submission filed by the respondents and were based on a fraudulent will details of which had not been disclosed in the amendment application. Further, it was argued that an amendment made at the behest of one defendant in a joint written statement could not be allowed.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that while allowing the civil revision the Court had observed that the trial court had gone into the merits of the amendment application which could not have been done at the stage of allowing the amendment application when the trial had not started. The revision court had observed that the amendment to the written statement must be construed liberally when it does not change the nature of the written statement, nor does it retract anything said therein.

Justice Banerji held that the merits of the amendment application cannot be gone into at the stage of allowing the amendment application. At this stage, it is only required to be seen whether such an amendment is necessary for deciding the issues before the Court. Accordingly, the Court held that the order of the revisional court was justified.

The other issue before the Court was whether written submissions jointly filed by various defendants could be amended at the behest of one defendant.

A coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court in Narendra Singh v. Bhartendra Singh had held that once a written statement has been jointly filed by the defendants, it cannot be amended at the behest of one of the defendants.

The Court relied on Sri R.D. Suresh @ Manjunath & Ors. v. Sri R.A. Manjunath & Ors., where the Karnataka High Court had held that the third defendant could not be allowed to amend the written statement jointly filed with other defendants especially when the were not agreement with the proposed pleadings and the amendment sought to be made was contrary to the averments made in the written submission jointly filed.

The Court held that since there was no averment in the amendment application regarding consent having been obtained from Defendant No. 2 for amending the written statement jointly filed, the amendment could not be allowed as it would prejudice the rights of Defendant No. 2.

The Court held that since the Trial Court had not considered this aspect of the case, the revision was rightly allowed. Accordingly, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of remand was dismissed.

Case Title: Smt. Chanda Kedia And Another vs. Dwarika Prasad Kedia And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 254 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9337 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 254

Counsel for Petitioner: Tarun Agrawal

Counsel for Respondent: Rahul Agarwal

Click Here To Read/Download Order