Amendment of written statement allowed where alternative plea under the Easements Act was consistent with the defence already taken.

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings liberally where it is necessary to decide the real controversy. In a defence amendment, an alternative plea may be allowed if it is not inconsistent with the existing stand, does not withdraw an admission so as to cause irretrievable prejudice, and any inconvenience can be met by costs. Applying that approach, the proposed plea that the licence was irrevocable under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 was treated as an alternative rebuttal plea rather than a destructive departure from the defence already taken. The amendment was allowed, subject to payment of arrears of licence fee and costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendant could be permitted to amend the written statement so as to add an alternative plea that, even if he was a licensee, the licence was irrevocable and protected under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.

Analysis: The power to amend pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is wide and should be exercised liberally where the amendment is necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties. An amendment in defence is generally allowed more liberally than an amendment introducing a new cause of action, and an alternative plea may be permitted if it is not inconsistent with the existing defence, does not withdraw an admission in a manner causing irretrievable prejudice, and any delay or inconvenience can be compensated by costs. The proposed plea under Section 60(b) was treated as an alternative and rebuttal plea, not as a barred or destructive departure from the defence already taken.

Conclusion: The amendment was allowed, and the defendant was permitted to incorporate the plea based on Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, subject to payment of arrears of licence fee and costs.

---