AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
By means of the present civil revision, filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the defendant/revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated 14.09.2026, passed by learned Judge, Small Cause/ District Dehradun in SCC Suit No.33 of 2024, whereby amendment application bearing paper no.83ga under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected.
Admit.
Facts, necessary for adjudication of the present civil revision, are as under:
The plaintiffs/ respondents filed a SCC suit, bearing SCC Suit No.33 of 2024 before the learned Judge, Small Cause/ District Dehradun against the defendant/revisionist.
The defendant/revisionist contested the said SCC suit by filing her written statement. After the exchange of pleadings, learned Judge SCC framed the points for determination on 17.04.2026.
It is the case of the defendant/revisionist that defendant/ revisionist came to know that the plaintiffs/respondents had many other 10-15 properties in the city of Dehradun which are of also of higher market rent. This fact has not been asserted by the defendant/ revisionist in her written statement but after proper due diligence of the properties, the defendant/ revisionist was desirous to amend the written statement by incorporating the description of the properties of the plaintiffs/ respondents for which defendant/ revisionist filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC bearing paper no.83c.
No written objections were filed against the amendment application, however, the same was opposed orally on behalf of the plaintiffs (respondents herein).
Learned District Judge heard the parties counsel on the amendment application preferred by the defendant / revisionist and vide the impugned order dated 14.09.2026 rejected the amendment application aforesaid, hence, the present civil revision.
Assailing the impugned order dated 14.09.2026, learned counsel for the defendant / revisionist would submit that the plaintiffs/ respondents have several properties in the city and to bring on record the description of such properties the amendment was necessary for which, inter alia, that particular pleading warranted to be incorporated in the written statement. He would further submit that the factum of the plaintiffs/ respondents are having several properties in the city would be necessary for effective and proper adjudication of the suit. He would further submit that by virtue of the amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement no admission was sought to be withdrawn. It was a simple amendment and it will not be affecting the nature of the suit.
Learned counsel for the defendant/ revisionist would submit that trial court has not touched the case. Learned counsel for the defendant/ revisionist has relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court Sanjay Badoni Vs. Pradeep Chopra and Anr. 2026 Law Finder (Uttarakhand) 283 and has placed reliance on para no.17, 18, 19 and 20 thereof which are being extracted hereunder:
“17.It is equally well settled that amendment of written statement stands on a different footing than amendment of plaint. The defendant is entitled to raise alternative and even inconsistent pleas, so long as the basic structure of defence is not completely altered and no clear admission is sought to be withdrawn in a manner causing irretrievable prejudice to the opposite party. A more liberal approach is warranted while considering amendment in written statement.
18.From the record, it is evident that the petitioner sought incorporation of a clarificatory and explanatory plea and also intended to raise an alternative defence in the event the property in question is held to be outside the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The amendment was defensive in nature. It neither introduced a wholly new cause of action nor sought to displace the foundational defence already taken in the written statement. Rather, it was intended to supplement and elaborate the existing stand. The law consistently recognizes that amendment of written statement is to be viewed more liberally than amendment of plaint.
19.The learned Revisional Court, however, while rejecting the amendment application, appears to have examined the sustainability of the defence on merits and the admissibility of certain documents, which exercise was beyond the scope of enquiry at the stage of deciding amendment. The Court was not required to adjudicate upon the correctness or ultimate success of the defence sought to be incorporated. The correctness of the plea is a matter to be tested at the stage of final adjudication and not at the stage of amendment.
20.The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires the Court to consider whether the party, despite due diligence, could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. In the present case, the amendment was sought during pendency of the revision proceedings. The petitioner had explained that the amendment was clarificatory in nature and intended to bring on record an alternative plea already germane to the controversy. The explanation furnished cannot be said to be wholly unsatisfactory or lacking bona fides.”
Learned counsel for the defendant/ revisionist would submit that the defendant / revisionist is entitled to raise alternative and even inconsistent pleas in the written statement and a more liberal approach is warranted for allowing amendment in the written statement.
Learned counsel for the defendant / revisionist has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Kunjukrishna Pillai & Anr. Vs. D. Sreekantan Nair & Ors. 2008 Law Finder (SC) 2110 and has drawn the attention of the Court to para 7 thereof, which is being extracted hereunder:
7.We, however, find that the High Court ought to have allowed the applications under Order 5. Rule 17 and Order 41. Rule 27 CPC. While it is true that the amendment application was not filed before the trial commenced, that by itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the application. The first defendant was not attempting to put forth any ground inconsistent with what was stated in the written statement. He was only attempting to introduce an additional ground in so far as suit schedule item no.5 is concerned. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the said amendment application requires to be allowed, and, as a consequence, application under Order 41. Rule 22 for additional evidence has to be allowed.”
Learned counsel for the defendant/ revisionist while referring the said para submitted that the defendant was not attempting to put forth any ground inconsistent with what was stated in the written statement, therefore, the trial court fell into error by rejecting the amendment application.
Learned counsel for the defendant / revisionist has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 602 and has placed reliance on paragraph no.23 thereof which is being extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“23.As noted herein earlier, Mr Lalit placed strong reliance on Heeralal [(1998) 1 SCC 278] to contend that the admission made by the appellants in the original written statement in the facts and circumstances of the case could not at all be taken away. In our view, the factual position of the case before us and the facts involved in that decision are different. In Heeralal case [(1998) 1 SCC 278] a definite stand was taken that the plaintiff had a share in seven out of the ten scheduled properties as they belonged to the plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 as joint family properties. However, the defendants moved an application for amendment of the written statement, which was not allowed by the trial court. While dealing with this nature of amendment, in that decision, this Court observed that it was wrong on the part of the High Court to assume that by taking an inconsistent stand, the respondents would prejudicially affect the appellant's case. The Court observed: (SCC pp. 281-82, para 6)
“6.In our view, the order passed by the High Court under Section 115 CPC, allowing withdrawal of earlier admissions of Defendants 1 and 2 in their original written statement about 5 out of 7 items of Schedule A properties cannot be sustained. The reason is obvious. So far as Schedule A properties were concerned, a clear admission was made by Defendants 1 and 2 in their joint written statement in 1993 that 7 properties out of 10 were joint family properties wherein the plaintiff had 1/3rd share and they had 2/3rds undivided share. Once such a stand was taken, naturally it must be held that there was no contest between the parties regarding 7 items of suit properties in Schedule A. The learned trial Judge, therefore, was perfectly justified in framing Issue 2 concerning only remaining three items for which there was dispute between the parties. In such a situation under Order 15 Rule 1 CPC the plaintiff even would have been justified in requesting the court to pass a preliminary decree forthwith qua these 7 properties. The said provision lays down that, ‘where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce the judgment’. Even that apart, the defendant-respondents did not think it fit to move any amendment application for getting out of such admission till the plaintiff moved an application for appointment of receiver regarding admitted items of properties. It is only thereafter that the application for amendment was moved. Learned trial Judge was right when he observed that even the grounds made out in the application were not justified. Consequently, there is no question of taking inconsistent stand which would not have affected prejudicially the plaintiff as wrongly assumed by the High Court.” Keeping the aforesaid observations and also the facts involved in Heeralal case [(1998) 1 SCC 278] in mind, we are of the view that the decision in that case may not be of any help to the respondents.”
While relying upon the said judgment learned counsel for the defendant/ revisionist would submit that in the case of amendment of a written statement the courts would be more liberal in allowing the application than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter. He would thus submit that the Judge SCC has erred in rejecting the amendment application and he would thus submit that revision be allowed.
Per contra, Shri Gagan Gupta and Shri Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for the plaintiffs / respondents would draw attention of this Court to para no.7 of the impugned order. They would submit that learned District Judge, Dehradun has considered each and every amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement and has also examined the relevance thereof.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs / respondents would submit that what other properties they may have and letting of their properties cannot be a ground for effective and proper adjudicating of a SCC suit for eviction and arrears of rent.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents while referring to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others (2009) 10 SCC 84 has drawn the attention to para 58 thereof, which is being extracted hereunder:
“Whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy
58.The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courts' discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment.”
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents would submit that in para 6 thereof the learned District Judge, Dehradun has considered this particular judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs / respondents would submit that the first condition which has to be satisfied before an amendment can be allowed is whether such amendment is necessary for determination of the real controversy involved in the suit.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs / respondents would submit that whether the plaintiffs/ respondents are having other properties may not be relevant consideration for proper and effective adjudication and for determination of the real controversy in the suit.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents have also submitted that the trial court has held that the proposed amendments are not necessary for proper adjudication of the suit and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents would thus submit that the defendant/ revisionist has failed the basic test for seeking amendment in the written statement.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents have further submitted that the SCC suit is at the stage of examination-in-chief of the plaintiffs/ respondents and the defendant/ revisionist has sought several adjournments. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents have further submitted that the defendant/ revisionist has been moving various applications seeking adjournment and the amendment is also one of the dilatory tactics adopted by the defendant/ revisionist to protract the proceedings of the trial court.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for the defendant/ revisionist would submit that the trial court is not granting any accommodation to the defendant/ revisionist. Learned counsel for the defendant/ revisionist has also submitted that by virtue of the amendment being sought the defendant / revisionist is not withdrawing any admission and the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit and the amendment is very simple in nature.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After going through the impugned order, what falls for consideration before this Court is whether the amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement is necessary for the determination of the real question involved in the controversy between the parties and whether the amendment application has been filed for the purpose of delay?
On one hand, learned counsel for the defendant/ revisionist would submit that the plaintiff was having several properties in the city and, therefore, to incorporate their description in the written statement and assert those particular facts, the amendment was necessary to be incorporated in the written statement and the amendment sought would not be withdrawing any admission and he has further submitted that amendment in written statement be allowed liberally.
He has further submitted that the defendant / revisionist was not attempting to put forth any ground inconsistent with what was stated in the written statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs / respondents would submit while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme in Revajeetu Builders (supra), that the sole test for allowing any amendment is whether any such amendment is necessary for determination of real question in controversy.
It has also been submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs / respondents that the trial court has taken into consideration whether the amendment being sought to be incorporated in the written statement is relevant for the disposal of the suit. It is also submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs/ respondents that the amendment application is a part of the dilatory tactics adopted to delay the proceedings.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it is evidently clear that the amendment which is being sought in the written statement is to the effect that the plaintiffs/ respondents are having 10 to 15 different commercial and residential properties. The number of properties plaintiffs/ respondents maybe having would not be of a relevant consideration for the effective adjudication of the suit. It is settled law as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders (supra) that the only criteria for allowing any amendment by the Court is whether such amendment is necessary for determination of the real controversy.
In the SSC Suit in question, whether the plaintiffs/ respondents are having 10 to 15 different commercial and residential properties would not be the real question in controversy between the parties. The reasoning as advanced by the learned District Judge, Dehradun that the amendment application has been filed for delaying the proceedings of the suit, is clear from the fact that several adjournments were sought at the stage of examination-in-chief. In such view of the matter, the amendment sought was not necessary for determination of the real question involved in controversy and amendment application has been filed as a dilatory tactic. Thus, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated 14.09.2026.
The instant revision does not have any force and is dismissed accordingly.