An amendment made to an existing pleading in a civil suit is to allow parties to supplement and support its existing case, which may have been necessitated due to a change in the existing facts and circumstances. However, as courts have time and again reiterated, the recourse available under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC cannot be availed by parties to put forth a new case altogether, and to plead an entirely different position. The reason is – courts will protect the interests of the counter-party when a suggested amendment seeks to plead an entirely different case in the suit, since the counter-party will be prejudiced in defending such a case afresh.
As we discussed in our column on comprehensive pleadings, it is crucial for the party to file a comprehensive main pleading, which contains all its averments and main position in the suit, since an amendment to the core of such pleading will not be allowed by the court under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
While the general disposition of courts towards amendment of pleadings is an accommodating one, it will protect the interests of the counter0party – especially when an amendment seeks to ‘displace the suit’ and displace the counterparty of a ‘valuable right which has already accrued to it’. These observations were made by the Supreme Court in its seminal decision in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co Ltd v. Ladha Ram, where the Court upheld the trial court’s decision to reject an application filed by the defendant to amend its written statement after it attempted to resile from admissions made in its pleadings. The Court held that such an attempt was clearly a mala fide attempt by the defendant to cover up its admissions, and to deny the plaintiff of a right which had accrued to it in law.
Once a court allows an amendment of pleading application and takes the amended pleading on record, the court will balance the procedural right of the counter-party to rebut and respond specifically to such amended pleadings. In Kedar Nath and others v. Ram Parkash and others, the Delhi High Court held that upon the filing of an amended pleading, the counter-party ought to be allowed to amend its pleading, to balance the procedural rights of the parties. The Court held that such leave should not just be granted in exceptional cases, but should be allowed generally – and in some cases, the court might also permit the filing of additional pleadings subsequent to an amendment.
Source: Barandbench
