The Uttarakhand High Court has reaffirmed the principle that courts must adopt a liberal approach to amendments in written statements under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, even when sought during revision proceedings after trial has concluded. This judgment clarifies that procedural technicalities must not override substantive justice when the amendment is clarificatory or alternative in nature.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction filed by the respondents, Pradeep Chopra and another, against the petitioner, Sanjay Badoni, in SCC Case No. 1 of 2021 before the Court of JSCC / Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar. The plaintiffs alleged that the petitioner was a tenant of a shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 733, had defaulted since 01.10.2020, and that the tenancy had been lawfully terminated by notice dated 13.12.2020. They further claimed the property was a new construction first assessed in 1987, thereby exempt from the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
Key Facts
- The petitioner, as defendant, contended he had been a tenant since 1997 under a lease dated 14.05.1997
- He asserted the property was an old construction and entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972
- Rent was regularly tendered but allegedly refused by the plaintiffs through money order
- The Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023, held the U.P. Rent Act inapplicable and decreed the suit for eviction and mesne profits
- The petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023 before the District Judge, Haridwar
- During pendency of the revision, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend his written statement
Procedural History
- 14.05.1997: Lease agreement allegedly executed between petitioner and previous owner
- 01.10.2020: Alleged date of rent default
- 13.12.2020: Termination notice issued by plaintiffs
- 01.01.2021: SCC Case No. 1 of 2021 filed by plaintiffs
- 10.05.2023: Trial Court delivered judgment and decree in favour of plaintiffs
- 2023: SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023 filed by petitioner
- 27.03.2024: Revisional Court rejected amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- 10.05.2024: Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1050 of 2024 filed before Uttarakhand High Court
- 05.01.2026: Judgment reserved
- 25.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Sought to add a clarificatory and alternative plea: if the property is held outside the U.P. Rent Act, then the tenancy continues by virtue of the 1997 lease and continued possession
- Argued the amendment did not withdraw any admission or introduce a new case
- Emphasized due diligence and absence of prejudice to respondents
For the Respondents
- Opposed amendment as belated, inconsistent, and an attempt to withdraw prior admissions
- Contended the proposed lease was unregistered and inadmissible
- Argued trial had concluded and no satisfactory explanation for delay was given
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 27.03.2024 rejecting the amendment application and direction to allow the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, with opportunity for consequential pleadings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court, in revision proceedings under Section 115 CPC, may reject an application for amendment of a written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on grounds of belatedness and alleged inconsistency, without applying the established liberal principles governing such amendments.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on settled jurisprudence that amendments to written statements are to be permitted liberally, especially when they are clarificatory or alternative. He cited Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta and K. K. Verma v. S. K. Verma to argue that defendants may raise inconsistent pleas so long as the core defence remains intact. He emphasized that the proposed amendment did not alter the foundational defence but supplemented it with an alternative scenario. He further argued that the Revisional Court erred by examining the merits of the proposed plea, which is impermissible at the amendment stage.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel contended that the amendment sought to introduce a new defence based on an unregistered lease, which was inadmissible in evidence. He argued that the trial had concluded and the revision was not a rehearing. He relied on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, asserting that the petitioner failed to show due diligence in not raising the plea earlier. He maintained that allowing the amendment would cause irreparable prejudice by reopening issues already adjudicated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by distinguishing between amendment of plaint and amendment of written statement. It held that while the former is subject to stricter scrutiny, the latter is entitled to a more liberal approach, as the defendant is merely defending his position and not initiating a new claim.
"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."
The Court observed that the proposed amendment did not withdraw any admission made in the original written statement. Instead, it added an alternative plea: if the property is not protected under the U.P. Rent Act, then the tenancy continues under the 1997 lease. This was a defensive, not offensive, addition.
The Revisional Court had erred by evaluating the sustainability of the proposed plea - whether the lease was registered or admissible - which is a matter for final adjudication, not for determination at the amendment stage. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Order VI Rule 17 CPC is to ensure the real controversy is decided, not to enforce procedural rigidity.
The Court further noted that the revision proceedings were still pending, and the respondents would have ample opportunity to meet the amended plea. No irreparable prejudice was demonstrated. The Revisional Court failed to record any finding of mala fides or lack of due diligence. Its rejection was based on apprehension of merit, not on statutory grounds.
The Court held that where a subordinate court misapplies the law on amendments and thereby causes a miscarriage of justice, interference under Article 227 is not only warranted but necessary.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 27.03.2024 rejecting the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was set aside. The amendment application was allowed. The petitioner shall effect the amendment within a time frame to be fixed by the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court shall afford the respondents an opportunity to file consequential pleadings and proceed to decide SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023 expeditiously, without being influenced by any observations made in this judgment on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Amendment of Written Statement Is Not a New Cause of Action
- Practitioners may now confidently seek amendments to written statements to introduce alternative or clarificatory pleas, even after trial concludes, provided the core defence remains unchanged
- Courts must not conflate the admissibility of evidence with the permissibility of pleading
- The burden lies on the opposite party to demonstrate real, irreparable prejudice - not speculative harm
Revision Proceedings Are Not a Bar to Amendment
- Pending revision under Section 115 CPC does not extinguish the right to amend pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Revision courts must not act as appellate forums to decide merits; their role is to correct jurisdictional or procedural errors
- Delay alone is insufficient to reject amendment; the explanation must be evaluated for bona fides, not perfection
Due Diligence Is Evaluated Contextually
- A party need not anticipate every legal argument at the outset; evolving legal interpretations or factual discoveries may justify later amendments
- Courts must assess whether the delay was intentional or due to legitimate oversight
- The absence of a categorical finding of lack of due diligence renders rejection of amendment legally unsustainable
