2006 (8) TMI 651 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Allows Amendment of Written Statement Before Trial Commencement, Overturns Lower Courts' Decisions.

The SC overturned the HC and Trial Court's decisions, permitting the amendment of the written statement by the Defendants/Appellants. The SC determined ... Application seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 - Withdrawing admission made in written statement - benami transactions - suit for a declaration of ownership and possession - Whether the High Court as well as the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the application ? - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the order rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement indicates that while rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement, the High Court as well as the trial court based their decisions mainly on three grounds. The first ground was that since the Appellants had made certain admissions in the written statement, its amendment cannot be allowed permitting the Appellants to withdraw their admission made in the same. Secondly, the question of limitation cannot be allowed to be raised by way of an amendment of the written statement and lastly inconsistent pleas in the written statement cannot also be allowed to be raised by seeking its amendment. We do not find any reason as to why amendment of the written statement introducing an additional plea of limitation could not be allowed. The next question is that if such amendment is allowed, certain admissions made would be allowed to be taken away which are not permissible in law. We have already examined the statements made in the written statement as well as the amendment of the written statement. After going through the written statement and the application for amendment of the written statement in depth, we do not find any such admission of the Appellants which was sought to be withdrawn by way of amending the written statement. In our view, the facts stated in the application for amendment were in fact an elaboration of the defence case. Accordingly, we are of the view that the High Court as well as the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement on the ground that in the event such amendment was allowed, it would take away some admissions made by the Defendants/Appellants in their written statement. That apart, in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.[2001 (9) TMI 1144 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that even there was some admissions in the evidence as well as the written statement, it was still open to the parties to explain the same by way of filing an application for amendment of the written statement. That apart, mere delay of three years in filing the application for amendment of the written statement could not be ground for rejection of the same when no serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 so as to take away any accrued right. The last ground on which the application for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the High Court as well as the Trial Court. The rejection was made on the ground that inconsistent plea cannot be allowed to be taken. We are unable to appreciate the ground of rejection made by the High Court as well as the Trial Court. After going through the pleadings and also the statements made in the application for amendment of the written statement, we fail to understand how inconsistent plea could be said to have been taken by the Appellants in their application for amendment of the written statement, excepting the plea taken by the Appellants in the application for amendment of written statement regarding the joint ownership of the suit property. Accordingly, on facts, we are not satisfied that the application for amendment of the written statement could be rejected also on this ground. We are therefore of the view that inconsistent plea can be raised by Defendants in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in the case of plaint, in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ladha Ram and Co.[1976 (9) TMI 177 - SUPREME COURT], this principle has been enunciated by this Court in which it has been clearly laid down that inconsistent or alternative pleas can be made in the written statement. Accordingly, the High Court and the Trial Court had gone wrong in holding that Defendants/Appellants are not allowed to take inconsistent pleas in their defence. As noted hereinafter, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which confers wide power and unfettered discretion to the Court to allow an amendment of the written statement of any stage of the proceedings. We are of the view that the High Court as well as the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of written statement. Accordingly, the orders of the High Court and the trial court are set aside, the application for amendment of written statement is allowed. The Defendants/Appellants are directed to file an amended written statement within a period of one month from the date of production of this order before the trial court to dispose of the suit within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to it. The appeals are allowed. There will he no order as to costs. Appeals allowed. Issues Involved:1. Amendment of written statement.2. Withdrawal of admissions in written statement.3. Raising the plea of limitation through amendment.4. Allowing inconsistent pleas in the written statement.5. Applicability of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Detailed Analysis:1. Amendment of Written Statement:The Supreme Court examined whether the amendment sought by the Defendants/Appellants in their written statement should have been allowed. The Court emphasized that courts should be extremely liberal in granting amendments to pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. The relevant provision, Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allows for amendments at any stage of the proceedings to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The Court concluded that the High Court and the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for amendment as it was essentially an elaboration of the defense case.2. Withdrawal of Admissions in Written Statement:The High Court and the Trial Court rejected the amendment on the grounds that it would allow the Defendants/Appellants to withdraw admissions made in the original written statement. The Supreme Court, however, found no such admissions in the original written statement that would be withdrawn by the proposed amendment. The Court also referenced the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., which held that even if there were admissions, parties could explain them through amendments.3. Raising the Plea of Limitation Through Amendment:The second ground for rejection was that the plea of limitation cannot be raised through an amendment. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and Ors., which allowed the plea of limitation to be raised as an additional defense. The Court found no reason why the amendment introducing the plea of limitation should not be allowed.4. Allowing Inconsistent Pleas in the Written Statement:The High Court and the Trial Court also rejected the amendment on the grounds that it introduced inconsistent pleas. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that adding a new ground of defense or altering a defense does not raise the same issues as altering a cause of action in a plaint. The Court cited the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ladha Ram and Co., which allowed inconsistent or alternative pleas in written statements.5. Applicability of Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 restricts amendments once the trial has commenced unless the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. The Supreme Court examined the records and found that the trial had not yet commenced as the parties had not filed their documentary evidence. Thus, the proviso did not apply, and the amendment should have been allowed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court, allowing the amendment of the written statement. The Defendants/Appellants were directed to file the amended written statement within one month, and the trial court was instructed to dispose of the suit within one year. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.