AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) has been filed by the Defendant seeking amendment of the Written Statement.
The instant Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, inter alia seeking possession of the suit premises being 4 bedrooms, 3 toilets, kitchen, lobby and drawing cum dining room, common servant quarter and toilet on roof terrace of the building and the partly built third floor comprising of 2 bedrooms with attached toilets, kitchen and drawing cum dining room, of the property bearing no. E-64 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”).
As per the Plaint, the Plaintiff is the sole legal heir of the estate of her mother namely, Late Smt. Tripta Chhabra, which comprises of 1/3rd undivided share in the Suit Property. It is stated that the Defendant‟s claim of being the wife of Late Shri Sumit Chhabra, i.e., the brother of the Plaintiff, and thereby being entitled to share in the Suit Property through Late Sumit Chhabra, is untenable in law, as the marriage solemnised between the brother of the Plaintiff, Late Mr. Sumit Chhabra and Defendant on 31.08.2020 is void ab initio, since the same was solemnised whilst Defendant was already married to one Mr. Ashish Jain.
Accordingly, it is the case of the Plaintiff that on account of Late Shri Sumit Chhabra dying intestate and Defendant not being his legally wedded wife, the Plaintiff is the sole legal heir entitled to the aforementioned share qua the Suit Property.
Now by way of the instant Application, the Applicant/Defendant herein seeks to amend Paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the „reply on merits‟ in the original Written Statement in the following terms:
| Contents of the original written statement | Contents sought to be placed in the amended written statement |
|---|---|
| 5. That the contents of Para No.5 of the plaint are wrong, false and hence denied. It is wrong and denied that Mr. Sumit Chhabra who was a divorcee died intestate on 22.07.2022 leaving behind the Plaintiff as the sole legatee/legal heir. It is specifically submitted that though Mr. Sumit Chhabra was a divorcee as he had obtained a decree of divorce from his first wife namely Smt. Arti but thereafter Mr. Sumit Chhabra got remarried to the defendant Smt. Bhavna Jain @ | 5. That the contents of Para No.5 of the plaint are wrong, false and hence denied. It is submitted that the Plaintiff was not a sole legal heir of Mr. Sumit Chhabra as Mr. Sumit Chhabra got married to the defendant as per Hindu Rites and Rituals on 06/03/2021. Hence, the Defendant is a class -1 legal heir of the deceased Sumit Chhabra. |
| Bhavna Chhabra on 31/08/2020. It is further submitted that Mr. Sumit Chhabra had a son namely Master Kayan who is living with his mother Smt. Arti (first wife of Mr. Sumit Chhabra) which fact has been intentionally concealed by the plaintiff in her suit. It is specifically submitted that the plaintiff, in no manner, is the legal heir of Mr. Sumit Chhabra because the defendant is the legally wed wife of Mr. Sumit Chhabra. For further reply it is submitted that the reply to the preceding Para No.3 on merits, may kindly be read as part and parcel of this Para under reply as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. | |
| 6. That the contents of Para No.6 of the plaint are wrong, false and hence denied. It is wrong and denied that Mr. Sumit Chhabra is alleged to have re-married on 31.08.2020 with Defendant-Ms. Bhavna Jain, At the time of marriage, it was represented by Defendant-Ms. Bhavna Jain that she was a divorcee, and that her family had severed all their relations with her because of her divorce. It is specifically submitted that the defendant has lawfully married with Mr. Sumit Chhabra, on. 31.08.2020. It is further submitted that the defendant and her previous husband namely Mr. Ashish Jain filed a divorce petition U/S 13-B(2) HMA i.e. second motion petition on 27.08.2020 but their joint statement was recorded before. the Ld. Family Court on 24.02.2021. It is further submitted that the second motion statements | 6. That the contents of Para No.6 of the plaint are wrong, false and hence denied. It is submitted that, the Defendant was granted divorce by the Hon'ble Family court on 24/02/2021, thereafter on the advice of elders and well-wishers, the Defendant and her deceased husband decided to get married and got married as per Hindu Rites and Rituals on 06/03/2021. |
of the defendant herein and her previous husband could not be recorded due to Covid. It is specifically submitted that the aforesaid marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra was solemnized well with the consent of her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain, moreover, the plaintiff and her family members also remained present in the manage ceremony of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra. It is specifically submitted that Mr. Sumit Chhabra and the plaintiff and all other their relatives were well aware about the MOU between the defendant and her previous husband regarding their divorce with mutual consent and also the fact that the first motion petition U/S 13-B (1) of HMA had already been granted by the Ld. Family Court on 24.12.2019, It is further submitted that the divorce decree was also passed on 24.02.2021. It is specifically submitted that there was no dispute between the defendant & her previous husband in regard of the marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra as her previous husband was not having any objection in the said marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra, moreover, there was a memorandum of understanding between the defendant and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain that they would file the second motion petition for getting the decree of divorce and in fact the decree was obtained from the Ld Family court, Delhi with the consent of the defendant & her previous husband. It is specifically
| submitted that the marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra is legally valid in every aspect. It is specifically submitted that, moreover the plaintiff was also very much aware of the aforesaid facts & the plaintiff herself arranged the venue for marriage function of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra & plaintiff and her husband happily joined the said marriage of defendant with her husband & all other relatives. It is specific submitted that the defendant and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain never breached the conditions of the Memorandum Of Understanding which was submitted by them in the Hon'ble Family Court at the ti filing first motion petition U/S 13-B(1) HMA till the date of decree divorce granted by the Hon'ble Family Court on 24.02.2021. For further reply it is submitted that the reply to the preceding para No.3 on merits, may kindly be read as part and parcel of this para under reply as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. | |
| 10. That the contents of Para No.10 of the plaint are wrong, false and hence denied. It is wrong and denied that after the demise of Mr. Sumit Chhabra on making inquiries it has now transpired that the said Defendant-Ms. Bhavna Jain was not divorced at the time of her alleged marriage on 31.08.2020 with Mr. Sumit Chhabra, and her marriage with Mr. Ashish Jain was existing. It further denied that the Defendant- Bhavna Jain was married to Mr. Ashish Jain on 28.07.2007 and out of his wedlock. It is not denied that they had one son Master Rishabh Jain. It is specifically submitted that the defendant has lawfully married with Mr. Sumit Chhabra, on 31.08.2020, It is further submitted that the defendant had already filed petition U/S 13-B(1) HMA i.e. first motion before the Ld. Family Court and the joint statements in the first motion were recorded and first motion was allowed on 24.12.2019 and thereafter the defendant and her previous husband namely Mr. Ashish Jain filed a divorce petition U/S 13-B(2) HMA i.e. second motion petition on 27.08.2020 but their joint statement was recorded before the Ld. Family Court on 24.02.2021. It is specifically submitted that the petition U/S 13- B (2) of HMA had already been submitted in the court on 27.08.2020 but their joint statement were recorded in the court on 24.02.2021. It is further submitted that the second motion statement of the defendant herein and her previous husband could not be recorded due to Covid. It is specifically submitted that the aforesaid marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra was solemnized well with the consent of her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain, moreover, the plaintiff and her family members also remained present in the marriage ceremony of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra. It is specifically submitted that Mr. Sumit Chhabra and the plaintiff and all other their relatives were well aware about the MOU between the defendant and | 10. That the contents of Para No.10 of the present suit are wrong and denied except that the Defendant had only one son i.e. master Rishabh Jain. It is submitted that the Second Motion petition for dissolution of marriage of the Defendant had been filed on 27/08/2023 and decree was divorce was not granted on that day. Hence, Defendant and her deceased husband decided to start a new life together and moved into a civil union and started co-habiting, so to uphold the dignity and respect of the Defendant in the society and family, a celebratory function was organized on 31/08/2020. Later, on the advice of elders and well-wishers, the Defendant after obtaining the decree of divorce from the Family Court on 24/02/2021, the Defendant and her deceased husband decided to get married as per Hindu rites and rituals on 06/03/2021, in the presence of close friends (Sumit Rana S/o Satish Chand Rana R/o H.No-323 Akt-11B, Shri Balaji Garden, S-23, Rohini, Rahul Banarjee S/o Bimol Banarjee R/o 52 Pocket-26, Adarsh Appartment, Sec-24, Rohini-110085, Poonam Monga W/o Sunil Monga R/o 8/740, Near Singh Sahab Gurudwara, Shaktinagar) and cousin of the Defendant, as the parents of the Defendant had already expired (Mother in 2010 and Father in 2014), and her brother who was in Mumbai at that time due to corona could not travel, and the family of the deceased husband did not have cordial relation, for that reason apart from aforesaid friends, few other guests had attended the wedding. It is specifically submitted that Sh. Sumit Chhabra also made the Defendant his nominee in his bank Account No. 90232010021163 with Canara Bank, Rani Jhansi Road and also made her nominee in the locker no.:78 in the same bank and it is very much mentioned there that the Defendant is the wife of Sh. Sumit Chhabra. |
her previous husband regarding their divorce with mutual consent and also the fact that the first motion petition U/S 13-B(1) of HMA had already been granted by the Ld Family Court on 24.12.2019. It is further submitted that the joint statement of defendant and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain got recorded in the Ld. Family Court on 24.02.2021. It is further submitted that the divorce decree was also passed on the same date i.e., 24.02.2021 It is specifically submitted that there was no dispute between the defendant & her previous husband in regard of the marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra as her previous husband was not having any objection in the said marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra. moreover, there was a memorandum of understanding between the defendant and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain that they would file the second motion petition for getting the decree of divorce and in fact the decree was obtained from the Ld. Family Court, Delhi with the consent of the defendant & her previous husband. It is specifically submitted that the marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra is legally valid in every aspect. It is specifically submitted that, moreover, the plaintiff was also very much aware of all the aforesaid facts & the plaintiff herself arranged the venue for the marriage function of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra & the plaintiff and her husband happily joined the said marriage of the
| defendant with her husband & all other relatives. | |
| 11. That the content of Para No. 11 of the plaint are wrong. false and hence denied. It is wrong and denied that the divorce between Defendant Bhawna Jain and her husband Mr. Ashish Jain was granted by the court of Ld. Shri Sanjay Jindal, Judge, Family Court, Rohini, Delhi, on 24.02.2021, in HMA No. 511/2020 titled „Bhavna Jain and Ashish Jain‟. It is not denied that almost 6 months after the alleged void marriage with Mr. Sumit Chhabra on 31.08.2020. It is specifically submitted that the marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra is not void because defendant and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain had already filed petition for second motion U/S 13-B(2) HMA on 27/08/2020 before getting married with Mr. Sumit Chhabra i.e. 31/08/2020. It is further submitted that the defendant herein did not breached any Condition of the Memorandum of Understanding filed by her and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain in the Ld. Family Court, along with the petition under section 13B(1) HMA. It is further submitted that the previous husband of the defendant also had no objection for the marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra. It is further submitted that neither the defendant nor her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain breached any of the condition of the Memorandum Of Understanding, filed by them in the Ld. Family Court alongwith the petition of first motion, till the date | 11. That the content of Para. 11 is a matter of record and hence needs no reply. It is wrong and denied that the marriage is solemnized before obtaining the decree of divorce. |
of the decree of divorce, passed by the Ld. Family Court vide Order Dated:24.02.2021. It is specifically submitted that the defendant herein and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain have complied all the conditions averred in the Memorandum Of Understanding, filed by them alongwith the petition Bhavna Jain and her husband Mr. Ashish Jain was granted by the court of Ld. Shri Sanjay Jindal, Judge, Family Court, Rohini, Delhi, on 24.02.2021, in HMA No. 511/2020 titled 'Bhavna Jain and Ashish Jain'. It is not denied that almost 6 months after the alleged void marriage with Mr. Sumit Chhabra on 31.08.2020. It is specifically submitted that the marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra is not void because defendant and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain had already filed petition for second motion U/S 13-B(2) HMA on 27/08/2020 before getting married with Mr. Sumit Chhabra i.e. 31/08/2020. It is further submitted that the defendant herein did not breached any condition of the Memorandum of Understanding filed by her and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain in the Ld. Family Court, along with the petition under section 13-B(1) HMA. It is further submitted that the previous husband of the defendant also had no objection for the marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra. It is further submitted that neither the defendant nor her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain breached any of the condition of the Memorandum Of Understanding, filed by them in the
| Ld. Family Court alongwith the petition of first motion, till the date of the decree of divorce, passed by the Ld. Family Court vide Order Dated:24/02/2021. It is specifically submitted that the defendant herein and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain have complied all the conditions averred in the Memorandum Of Understanding, filed by them alongwith the petition US 13-B(1). Le HMA No: 1841/2019. It is specifically submitted the defendant has been peacefully living in her matrimonial house i property of her husband Mr. Sumit Chhabra, Property bearing No E-64, First Floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015, being his legal heir. | |
| 12. That the contents of para No.12 of the plaint are wrong, false and hence denied. It is wrong and denied that the alleged divorce by and between Defendant-Ms. Bhavna Jain and her husband Mr. Ashish Jain, has been obtained by playing fraud upon the Family Court. It is a matter of judicial record that on 24.02.2021 the marital status of Defendant-Bhavna Jain in the HMA No. 511/2020 has been recorded as wife of Mr. Ashish Jain resident of 106 Ground Floor, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar (West), Delhi-110009, which is also recorded in the Joint Statement of the parties signed on 24.02.2021 before the court of Ld. Shree Sanjay Jindal, Judge, Family Court, Rohini, Delhi. It is further denied that even the pleadings in the Divorce Petition are tainted as both the parties are shown detailed to be residing in the same property 106 Ground Floor, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar (West) Delhi, though in separate rooms since 07.02.2018, and it is averred in the pleadings that the said Defendant Bhavna Jain would leave her matrimonial home after the completion of the divorce petition. It is specifically submitted that the defendant and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain have not played any fraud while taking decree of divorce from the Hon'ble Family Court. It is specifically submitted that the defendant hereindid not breached any condition of the Memorandum of Understanding filed by her and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain in the Ld. Family Court, along with the petition under section 13-B(1) HMA. It is further submitted that the previous husband of the defendant also had no objection for the marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra. It is further submitted that neither the defendant nor her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain breached any of the condition of the Memorandum Of Understanding, filed by them in the Ld. Family Court alongwith the petition of first motion, till the date of the decree of divorce, passed by the Ld. Family Court vide Order Dated 24.02.2021. It is specifically submitted that the defendant herein and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain have complied all the conditions averred in the Memorandum of Understanding, filed by them along with the petition U/S13-B (1). i.e. HMA No.: 1841/2019. It is specifically submitted that the defendant herein had been living in her previous matrimonial house along with his previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain but there had been no cohabitation between them which had already been mentioned in their petition U/S 13-B(1) HMA and there was not any cohabitation between them till the decree of divorce passed by the Ld. Family Court and also thereafter the defendant had no connection with her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain. | 12. That the contents of Para No. 12 of the plaint are wrong, false and hence denied. It is wrong and denied that the alleged divorce by and between Defendant Ms. Bhavna Jain and her husband Mr. Ashish Jain has been obtained by playing fraud upon the Family Court. It is specifically submitted that the defendant and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain have not played any fraud while obtaining decree of divorce from the Ld. Family Court. It is specifically submitted that the defendant hereindid not breached any condition of the Memorandum of Understanding filed by her and her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jai before the Ld. Family Court, along with the petition under section 13-B(1) HMA. It is further submitted that the previous husband of the defendant also had no objection towards their marriage of the defendant with Mr. Sumit Chhabra. It is further submitted that neither the defendant nor her previous husband Mr. Ashish Jain breached any of the condition of the Memorandum Of Understanding, filed by them in the Ld. Family Court alongwith the petition of first motion, till the date of the decree of divorce, passed by the Ld. Family Court vide Order Dated 24.02.2021. |
| 13. That the contents of para No.13 of the plaint are wrong, false and hence denied. It is wrong and denied that the marriage of Mr. Sumit Chhabra with Defendant-Bhavna Jain on 31.08.2020 is a nullity and voeds initio marriage. The Defendant-Bhavna Jain is neither the legally married wife of Mr. Sumit Chhabra nor his legal heir and/ or Selly entitled to any right, title, interest and/or share in the estate of late Mr. Sumit Chhabra. It is specifically submitted that the defendant Ms. Bhavna Jain was a divorcee at the time of her marriage with Mr. Sumit Chhabra ie. 31.08.2020, It is further submitted that the defendant Bhavna Jain @ Bhavna Chhabra is legally married wife of Shri Sumit Chhabra. It is further submitted that being the widow of Shri Sumit Chhabra, the defendant is Class-1 legal heir of Shri Sumit Chhabra and in this manner, she is legally entitled every right, title and interest and/or share in the estate of late Shri Sumit Chhabra. It is specifically submitted that the defendant is rightfully and legally | 13. That the contents of Para No.13 of the plaint are wrong, false and hence denied. It is submitted that the reply to the preceding Para No- 10 on merits, may kindly be read as part and parcel of this Para under reply as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. |
living in the suit property being the wife of Shri Sumit Chhabra. It is specifically submitted that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest or share in the suit property in any manner as she is not the Class-l legal heir of deceased Shri Sumit Chhabra, moreover, the plaintiff has herself given No Objection to the WILLS executed by Smt. Tripta Chhabra (mother of the plaintiff) and Shri Surinder Chhabra (father of the plaintiff). bequeath their properties in favour of Shri Sumit Chhabra.
It is pertinent to note that on 06.08.2024 and 09.05.2025, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made a submission before the learned Joint Registrar that he does not wish to file reply to the instant Application and would address arguments straightaway.
Accordingly, this Court proceeds with the matter.
The Applicant/Defendant herein seeks amendment to the Written Statement on the ground that the Written Statement as originally filed is incomplete and insufficient information was given regarding the solemnization of marriage between the Applicant/Defendant and the deceased husband, Late Shri Sumit Chhabra, because of errors made by the previous Counsel.
It is further submitted that on account of Applicant/Defendant being illiterate, she could not decipher the contents of the original Written Statement in a proper perspective. For this reason, it was only in April 2023 when there was a change in Counsels, that the Applicant/Defendant discovered the errors leading to the filing of the present Application. Consequently, it is submitted that the amendments, substitutions and additions are relevant in view of proper adjudication of the present matter.
Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that the Defendant, under the garb of the amendments sought in the instant Application, is actually seeking to withdraw her admission regarding the date of marriage solemnised between Defendant and her former husband. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the amendments as sought by the Defendant are untenable in law so far as Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is concerned, for the reason that the provision precludes the Applicant from withdrawing any admission in the pleadings. It is submitted that allowing of the instant Application at this stage will prejudice the case set up by the Plaintiff/Non-Applicant.
The law with regard to amendment of pleadings is governed by Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which reads as under:
“17. Amendment of pleadings.—
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” (Emphasis Supplied)
Vide the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Joint Registrar, it was recorded that right of Plaintiff to file replication and affidavit of Admission/Denial with respect to the documents of the Defendant stands closed. Accordingly, pleadings in the instant Suit stands complete. However, issues are yet to be framed.
In view of the language of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, it can be inferred that the amendment to the pleadings can be allowed by the Court, as a matter of norm at any stage of the proceedings, if the Court deems it appropriate for the purpose of determining real question in controversy between the parties.
However, by virtue of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, a rider has been appended to the general principle, which provides that subsequent to the stage of framing of issues, the amendment can only be allowed if the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Since issues in the present Suit have not yet been framed, the bar under the proviso does not apply.
The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been crystallized by the Apex Court in several cases. It is settled law that courts should take a liberal view in allowing amendment of pleadings. The Apex Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256, has held as under:
“33.There cannot be any doubt or dispute that the courts should be liberal in allowing applications for leave to amend pleadings but it is also well settled that the courts must bear in mind the statutory limitations brought about by reason of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Acts; the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 being one of them. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511, the law has been laid down by this Court in the following terms : (SCC p. 517, para 16)
“16.Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. (Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC 166].)”
34.In the case of P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525, the above observations were reiterated by this Court and in the light of the same, this Court in para 9 held as under:
“9.By reason of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, measures have been taken for early disposal of the suits. In furtherance of the aforementioned parliamentary object, further amendments were carried out in the years 1999 and 2002. With a view to put an end to the practice of filing applications for amendments of pleadings belatedly, a proviso was added to Order 6 Rule 17 which reads as under:
“17.Amendment of pleadings.—The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties :
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.””
35.In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712, this Court referred to the following passage from A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 wherein, it was held as follows:—
“4.This Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corpn. [AIR 1967 SC 96 : (1966) 1 SCR 796] held:
“The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neal [[L.R.] 19 Q.B. 394 : 56 LJ QB 621]. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation : See Charan Das v. Amir Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50 : ILR 48 Cal 110] and L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [AIR 1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438]
The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith [[L.R.] 26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729]) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).
The expression „cause of action‟ in the present context does not mean „every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed‟ as was said in Cooke v. Gill [[L.R.] 8 C.P. 107 : 42 LJCP 98 : 28 LT 32] in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property Corpn. Ltd. [[1962] 2 All ER 24 (CA)] and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. The words „new case‟ have been understood to mean „new set of ideas‟ : Dornan v. J.W. Ellis and Co. Ltd. [[1962] 1 All ER 303 (CA)] This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time.”
Again in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [(1974) 2 SCC 393] this Court held : (SCC p. 399, para 22)
“The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the court.”
In Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram [(1978) 2 SCC 91] it was held : (SCC p. 93, para 4)
“4.It is clear from the foregoing summary of the main rules of pleadings that provisions for the amendment of pleadings, subject to such terms as to costs and giving of all parties concerned necessary opportunities to meet exact situations resulting from amendments, are intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. Even if a party or its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed generally by appropriate steps taken by a party which must no doubt pay costs for the inconvenience or expense caused to the other side from its omissions. The error is not incapable of being rectified so long as remedial steps do not unjustifiably injure rights accrued.”……” xxx
37.Thus, the Plaintiffs and Defendant are entitled to amend the plaint, written statement or file an additional written statement. It is, however, subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment, an opposite party should not be subject to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the other party is not but wrong. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed liberally which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided that the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken.
38.Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings.”
In addition, the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1, after analysing several case laws has summarised the law regarding amendment of pleadings as under:-
“71.Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: xxx
71.3.The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:
71.3.1.If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.
71.3.2.To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a)the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,
(b)by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and
(c)the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
71.4.A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:
71.4.2.The amendment changes the nature of the suit.
71.4.3.The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or
71.4.4.By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
71.5.In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
71.6.Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
71.7.Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.
71.8.Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
71.9.Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.
71.10.Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
71.11.Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897] .)”
A perusal of the law laid down by the Apex Court shows that any prayer for amendment should generally be allowed, unless the amendment changes the nature of the suit in case of plaint or attempts to withdraw admission(s), in case of written statement. In a nutshell, the Courts‟ must not take a hypertechnical approach and the amendment must liberally be interpreted.
Applying the law the as laid down by the Apex Court to the present application, this Court is of the opinion that the amendments in the Written Statement are only explanatory in nature and supplements the original written statement filed by the Defendant herein. It cannot be said that the Defendant by way of the amendments sought in the present application, is trying to withdraw or change any admissions in the original written statement.
Any objection as regards the date of solemnisation of marriage is a subject matter of trial and ought not preclude the Court from allowing the pleading to be amended for the Defendant to be able to aver the same, especially considering that issues in the instant suit have not yet been framed. The Plaintiff accordingly, would be given an opportunity to contest the averments sought to be made by way of the instant Application, at the appropriate stage of trial.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no irreparable prejudice will be caused to the Plaintiff by permitting the amendment. The Plaintiff will have full liberty to file their replication and to lead evidence in rebuttal.
In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the proposed amendments are bona fide and are required for proper adjudication of the instant Suit.
Accordingly, the Application is allowed.
The Defendant is directed to amend his Written Statement in terms of the proposed amendments sough in the instant Application and allowed by this Court.
Let the amended Written Statement be filed by the Defendant, within a period of three weeks from today.
The Plaintiff is at liberty to file Replication to the amended portion of the Written Statement, within the time prescribed under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
The Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 15.09.2026.