Supreme Court permits amendment in defense statement, supporting trial court's discretion and urging expedited resolution.

The Supreme Court (SC) allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's (HC) decision that rejected the appellants' application to amend their written statement. The SC held that the amendment, which required the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 to prove their legitimacy, was permissible and did not constitute withdrawing an admission or causing irreparable prejudice. The SC directed the trial court to expedite the resolution of the suit, supporting the trial court's initial discretion to allow the amendment. No order as to costs was made.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants could amend their written statement to introduce new facts and challenge the legitimacy of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7.
2. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement by the appellants.
3. Applicability of legal principles regarding the amendment of pleadings, especially concerning admissions in written statements.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Amendment of Written Statement
The appellants sought to amend their written statement to introduce the claim that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 were illegitimate children of the deceased Appasao and thus could not inherit the suit properties. Initially, the Civil Judge allowed this amendment, but the High Court later set it aside, reasoning that it would displace the plaintiff's case and cause irretrievable prejudice.

Issue 2: High Court's Rejection of Amendment
The High Court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co., asserting that admissions in a written statement could not be withdrawn through amendments as it would completely alter the case of the plaintiff. The High Court also referred to Heera Lal v. Kalyan Mal and Ors., emphasizing that allowing such an amendment would prejudice the plaintiff's right to a partition decree.

Issue 3: Legal Principles on Amendment of Pleadings
The Supreme Court analyzed the principles under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows amendments to pleadings to determine the real questions in controversy. The Court noted that while amendments should generally be allowed liberally, they should not cause serious injustice or irreparable loss to the other party. The Court distinguished between amendments to plaints and written statements, stating that the latter could include new grounds of defense or inconsistent pleas without necessarily causing prejudice to the other party.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in rejecting the amendment application. The Court emphasized that the appellants did not withdraw their admission regarding the plaintiff's share in the property but added a proviso requiring the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 to prove their legitimacy. The Court held that such an amendment was permissible and did not amount to withdrawing an admission or causing irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. The Court reiterated that the principles of law and material on record supported the trial court's discretion in allowing the amendment.

Judgment:
The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order rejecting the amendment was set aside. The application for amendment of the written statement was allowed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the suit's resolution. There was no order as to costs.

---