Liberal amendment of written statement permitted where no serious prejudice is shown and trial has not truly commenced

Amendment of a written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to be allowed liberally where it furthers the real controversy and causes no serious prejudice. The Court noted that a defendant may raise additional or alternative defences, including inconsistent pleas, and that such amendment is not barred merely because it elaborates or varies the defence, provided it does not clearly withdraw an admission. A plea of limitation may also be introduced by amendment. Mere delay is insufficient to refuse amendment absent demonstrated prejudice. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 did not apply because trial, in the relevant sense, had not commenced. The rejection of the amendment application was therefore held erroneous and the defendants were permitted to amend the written statement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment of the written statement should be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including whether it withdrew admissions, introduced impermissible inconsistent pleas, or was barred by the stage of trial.

Analysis: The power to amend pleadings is to be exercised liberally where no serious injustice or irreparable prejudice is caused. In the case of a written statement, the Court may permit an additional or alternative defence, and inconsistent pleas are not barred in the same manner as in a plaint. The proposed amendment was treated as an elaboration of the defence rather than a withdrawal of any clear admission. The plea of limitation could also be introduced by amendment, and mere delay, without demonstrated prejudice, was not enough to refuse relief. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 did not apply because the trial had not commenced in the relevant sense, as documentary evidence and final hearing had not begun.

Conclusion: The amendment of the written statement ought to have been allowed, and the rejection of the application was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and the defendants were permitted to amend their written statement.

Ratio Decidendi: Amendment of a written statement should be allowed liberally to determine the real controversy, and alternative or inconsistent defences may be permitted so long as they do not cause serious prejudice or fall foul of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---