Amendment of written statement allowed where admission was not withdrawn and no irretrievable prejudice was shown.

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage where it is necessary to decide the real controversy, and the rule is applied more liberally to written statements than to plaints. A defendant may plead additional or even inconsistent defences, provided the amendment does not introduce a wholly new case or cause serious injustice. Here, the proposed amendment did not withdraw the earlier admission but merely added a qualification on entitlement, so it did not cause irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff. The amendment was therefore permissible, and the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's order.

---

---

Issues: Whether an amendment of the written statement could be allowed where the original pleading contained an admission, and whether the amendment would impermissibly withdraw that admission or cause irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff.

Analysis: Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits amendment of pleadings at any stage if the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy, and the rule is applied more liberally to written statements than to plaints. A defendant may raise additional or even inconsistent defences in a written statement, provided the amendment does not substitute a completely new case so as to defeat the opposite party by serious injustice. On the facts, the proposed amendment did not wipe out the earlier admission; it retained the admission and added a qualification requiring proof of legitimacy for entitlement to share. The authorities relied upon against amendment were distinguished because the present amendment did not displace the plaintiff's entire case or cause irretrievable prejudice.

Conclusion: The amendment of the written statement was permissible, and the High Court was wrong in setting aside the trial court's order allowing it.

---