O6 R7 CPC | Consideration For Amendment Of Plaint And Written Statement Stands On Different Footing: J&K High Court Explains

A bench of Justice M. A Chowdhary observed that even an admission in the pleadings can be explained, and inconsistent pleas can be taken in an amended Petition, even after a definitive stand has been taken in the prior Written Statement.

“The consideration for amendment of a Plaint and the consideration for amendment of a Written Statement stand on different footings and even an admission in the pleadings can be explained and inconsistent pleas can be taken in an amended Petition, even after taking a definite stand in the Written Statement filed prior in point of time. In the case of Written Statements, the Courts are more liberal in allowing the amendment than that of a Plaint, as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter one”, Justice Chowdhary opined.

Background Of The Case:

The dispute centered on a piece of land located in Gupt Ganga, Srinagar. Respondent/Plaintiff Riyaz Ahmad Bhat claimed ownership of the land based on a sale deed executed in his favor in 2007. Petitioner/Defendant Ghulam Hassan Khanyari contested this claim, asserting that the land belonged to him as a result of a family settlement.

The case was initially filed in the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar, where the petitioner sought to amend his written statement to provide additional details about the family settlement. However, the trial court rejected this request, citing the doctrine of constructive res judicata.

Assailing the dismissal of his amendment application the petitioner argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the distinction between amendments to the Plaint and the Written Statement. He contended that while amendments to a Plaint are subject to stringent scrutiny, the same rigor does not apply to amendments in a Written Statement.

On the other hand, the Respondent opposed the petition, arguing that the amendments sought by the petitioner in the Written Statement were an attempt to retract admissions previously made. He asserted that allowing such amendments would lead to injustice and complicate the trial process.

Court Observations:

Justice Chowdhary after meticulously examining the legal principles governing amendments to pleadings emphasized that while amendments to a Plaint are generally viewed with caution to prevent the plaintiff from altering the nature of the case, the approach towards amending a Written Statement is more lenient.

The Court observed that the law permits a defendant to amend their Written Statement to explain admissions or introduce inconsistent pleas, even if such amendments appear to contradict earlier statements.

Expounding on the mandate of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC that governs amendment of pleadings the court stated,

“Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) confers on a Court a power, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow alteration and amendment of the pleadings, if it is of the view that such amendment may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties”

Observing that a defendant can explain admissions or take inconsistent pleas in an amended written statement Justice Chowdhary opined that courts should be liberal in allowing such amendments unless they cause serious prejudice to the other party.

In his judgment, Justice Chowdhary also referenced the case of Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, emphasizing that inconsistent pleas in a Written Statement are permissible as long as they do not completely alter the defense's fundamental nature. The Court also underscored the principle from Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay that an admission in the Written Statement can be explained by an amendment, provided the amendment is bona fide and does not cause injustice to the other party.

Distinguishing between amendments sought in a Plaint versus those in a Written Statement, the court took recourse to precedent set in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons to underlined that while a plaintiff must maintain consistency in their pleadings, a defendant has the latitude to adapt their defense strategy through amendments, as long as it does not lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Dismissing the trial court's reasoning of doctrine of constructive res judicata as a ground to reject amendment application of the petitioner the Court noted that the defendant's application was essentially an elaboration of his existing defense and did not introduce any new grounds.

“The rejection of the application on this plea that the doctrine of 'constructive res judicata' would operate, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not a correct view taken by the Trial Court”, the bench remarked.

In alignment with these observations the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders of the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu. The Court further directed that the petitioner's amendments to the Written Statement be permitted.

Case Title: Ghulam Hassan Khanyari Vs Riyaz Ahmad Bhat

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 242

Mr Z. A. Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr A. Hanan, Advocate represented the petitioner, Mr Zahoor Ahmad Shah, Advocate appeared for the respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment