#Amendment of Written Statement

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a plaintiff may be recalled under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to testify on a new limitation issue framed after evidence has closed, ensuring procedural fairness and substantive justice. This clarifies that K.K. Velusamy does not bar recall when the legal ground emerges post-evidence, protecting litigants from being silenced by technical timing.

Calcutta High Court dismisses a tenant’s third attempt to amend pleadings after 15 years, holding that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC bars amendments when facts were known earlier and evidence is already closed. The ruling reinforces procedural discipline, preventing tactical delays in civil litigation.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that courts must adopt a liberal approach under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, permitting amendments to written statements even during revision proceedings to prevent miscarriage of justice. The judgment underscores that merits of the amendment should not be evaluated at the amendment stage, reinforcing procedural fairness in civil disputes.

Bombay High Court holds that courts must adopt a liberal approach to amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, even where admissions are sought to be withdrawn.