Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Now we notice the opposite view. First, we would take up the view of Delhi High Court.

8.1 In Ruksana Sultana Vs. Mahinder Kaur, 1983 Raj L.R. 776 J.D.Jain, J. has chosen to follow Himachal and Gujrat view refusing to subscribe to the Punjab view in Girdhari Lal's case and held :

"The defendant when required to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint does not get an unfettered right to take up any pleas he chooses and a departure in the subsequent pleadings cannot be permitted in violation of the prohibition contained in Order VI, r.17. However, I find it difficult to go further and subscribe to to the view that the additional written statement to be filed to the amended plaint must confine to the amendments made in the plaint i.e. the defendant can have his say only with respect to the matter introduced by amendment and no further. In my view, there is no warrant for such a conclusion having regard to the plain language or Order VII, r.6 which simply prohibits a party from raising any new ground of claim or making any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party in his subsequent pleadings. It nowhere says that a party called upon to file additional written statement must confine its answer to the amended portion of the opponent's pleadings. hence, a defense will be entitled to take up any new plea and even aver new facts in his additional written statement so long as they do not constitute a new ground of claim or are not incompatible with his earlier pleadings and there is no infraction of rule 17, Order VI. For instance, he may bring forth additional facts to explain or amplify the stand already taken in the original written statement. The Court will, of course ignore the additional written statement if it contains a new ground of claim or allegation of fact which is inconsistent with his previous pleadings"

11.2 In a very limited category of cases an amendment proposing to withdraw an admission and plead an inconsistent case may be allowed S.31 Evidence Act provides -admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they operate as estoppels. Law as to amendment of pleadings withdrawing admissions and dealing with principles governing such prayers was dealt with by this Court in at least two cases, namely Misha Vadera Vs. Ravi Kumar 1996-II AD(Del)113 and Rupa Sethi Vs. Sanjay Yadav 1997-II AD(Del) 260 which may be usefully referred.

20. None of the decided cases deals with a very important aspect of the procedure. The plaintiff under the Code of Civil Procedure cannot amend the plaint as of right. He must take the leave of the Court.If that be so, an amendment having been allowed, the power has to be left in the hands of the court to decide whether an opportunity or leave for consequential amendment in the written statement would meet the ends of justice or a subsequent additional pleading by the defendant is warranted and hence should be allowed. Ordinarily a plea allowed to be raised in the plaint by way of amendment should be left to be answered by a plea to be raised in the written statement by way of consequential amendment subject to leave of the court. While granting such leave in the light of the averment made in the application seeking such leave, the court would apply its mind whether the pleas raised now or sought to be raised by way of amendment are in lieu of the pleas raised earlier or are in addition thereto.The court would examine whether such pleas sought to be raised by way of amendment in the written statement are in any way inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the defendant. While considering an application for amendment, the court would have jurisdiction to permit an amendment inconsistent with the original pleadings though it will be a matter of discretion to permit or not to permit which discretion will be exercised judicially. Once the court grants leave to amend written statement on an application made to it for the purpose, the amendment so allowed would be incorporated in the written statement as originally filed. A consolidated but only one written statement would come into existence. This would be convenient and avoid confusion at the trial. As is borne out from the phraseology employed by Rule 9 of Order 8, the rule is not to permit any pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant. Jurisdiction to permit a subsequent pleading is there but that is by way of exception and exercisable subject to the leave of the Court being asked for which may be allowed upon such terms as the court thinks fit. An additional pleading cannot be inconsistent with the previous pleading of the party filing the same.

22. To sum up, we are of the opinion that:-

(i) merely because an amendment has been allowed in the plaint, the defendant does not get a right and certainly not an unbridled right to file a new written statement;

(ii) Any additional pleading cannot be at variance or inconsistent with the original pleading;

(iii) A pleading inconsistent with or in departure from an original pleading can be allowed only by way of amendment subject to the leave being granted by the Court under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.