Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendant nos.1 and 2, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Mohol dated 7 July 2003, which rejected their application for amendment of the written statement. The respondents, original plaintiff nos.1 to 4, had filed a suit for partition of joint family property originally owned by Maruti, the father of plaintiff nos.1 to 3 and defendant nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff no.4 was described as the wife of Maruti. In the original written statement, defendant nos.1 and 2 did not deny the relationship between the parties as mentioned in the plaint. Their defence was that there was a previous partition in the family in 1973, wherein plaintiff no.4 had surrendered her share, and shares were allotted only to plaintiff nos.1 to 3 and defendant nos.1 and 2. Subsequently, defendant nos.1 and 2 filed an application for amendment seeking to contend that plaintiff no.4 was not the legally wedded wife of Maruti but his concubine, and that plaintiff nos.1 to 3 were not legitimate children of Maruti. The trial court rejected the amendment on the ground that it sought to withdraw admissions made in the original written statement and make out a contrary case. The High Court examined the original written statement and found that it did not contain any admission regarding the marital status of plaintiff no.4; it merely did not deny the relationship. The defence of prior partition was not inconsistent with the proposed amendment. The court held that the proposed amendment did not withdraw any admission and was necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order, and permitted the amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 to the respondents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Withdrawal of Admission - The court considered whether a proposed amendment to the written statement that sought to deny the marital status of plaintiff no.4 and legitimacy of plaintiff nos.1 to 3 amounted to withdrawal of an admission made in the original written statement. The court held that the original written statement did not contain any admission regarding the marital status of plaintiff no.4; it only did not deny the relationship as mentioned in the plaint. Since the defence in the original written statement was based on a prior partition, the proposed amendment did not contradict that defence and did not amount to withdrawal of any admission. The court allowed the amendment, setting aside the trial court's order. (Paras 5-8) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Liberal Approach - The court reiterated that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy between the parties, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party that cannot be compensated by costs. The court found that the proposed amendment raised a new defence that did not contradict the earlier defence and was necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proposed amendment to the written statement seeking to deny the marital status of plaintiff no.4 and legitimacy of plaintiff nos.1 to 3 amounts to withdrawal of admission and is therefore impermissible.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Civil Judge dated 7 July 2003, and permitted the petitioners to amend the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 to the respondents within two weeks.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings
- Withdrawal of admission
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Liberal approach to amendment
- No withdrawal of admission if new plea does not contradict earlier defence
