Inconsistent Pleas In Amended Written Statement Cannot Be Struck Off Under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The power to strike out pleadings is not available merely because a pleading contains a defence inconsistent with, or different from, an earlier pleading. The Court must record a finding that the matter sought to be struck out falls within one or more of the specific contingencies contemplated by clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Rule 16." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 20, 2026, held that a defendant is entitled to wide latitude in altering or adding to their defence in an amended written statement, and such pleadings cannot be mechanically struck off under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) merely for taking an inconsistent stand or introducing an additional plea of limitation.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Gupta observed that the drastic power to strike out pleadings must be exercised with extreme caution and circumspection, strictly upon satisfying the statutory preconditions of the pleading being unnecessary, scandalous, vexatious, prejudicial to a fair trial, or an abuse of the court process.

The primary question before the High Court was whether an amended written statement filed in response to an amended plaint can be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 CPC merely because it sets up an inconsistent defence or introduces an additional plea of limitation. The Court was also called upon to examine the permissible scope of consequential pleadings and the extent of latitude available to a defendant as compared to a plaintiff when amending pleadings.

Power To Strike Out Pleadings Under Order VI Rule 16 CPC Is Discretionary And Exceptional

Interpreting the statutory mandate of Order VI Rule 16 CPC, the High Court observed that the power to strike out pleadings cannot be triggered simply because a subsequent defence diverges from or contradicts an earlier stand. The Bench underscored that the trial court must record a clear, statutory finding that the pleading falls within the specific vices delineated under clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Rule 16.

The Court reiterated that because striking out a written statement inflicts serious prejudice on a litigant’s right to defend the suit, the jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and cautiously. In this regard, the Bench drew support from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Abdul Razak (D) through LRs and others v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432, which emphasized that courts must act with great care and circumspection before eliminating pleadings from the record.

Defendant Has Corresponding Right To File Substituted Written Statement Upon Plaint Amendment

Examining the procedural rights of parties following an amendment of the plaint, the High Court affirmed that once a plaint is amended by leave of the court, the defendant acquires a consequential right to file an amended written statement. Citing its earlier decision in Jia Lal and another v. Savitri Devi and another (1995), the Court observed that upon amendment, the original pleadings stand substituted by the amended pleadings.

The Bench rejected the proposition that a consequential written statement must be mechanically restricted only to the specific paragraphs amended in the plaint. The Court relied on Naresh Kumar v. Om Prakash (1990) and the Madras High Court’s ruling in Sri Srinivasmurthy Mandiram v. Mrs. Gnanasoundari (AIR 2004 Mad 518) to hold that a defendant is fully entitled to alter the defence or introduce fresh grounds to resist the suit.

"While an amendment of the plaint is generally scrutinised with greater rigour because a plaintiff cannot ordinarily introduce an altogether new and inconsistent cause of action, a defendant is permitted greater latitude in altering or adding to his defence."

Substantive Distinction Between Amending A Plaint And Amending A Defence

Highlighting the fundamental difference in procedural treatment between plaintiffs and defendants, Justice Deepak Gupta explained that while an amendment of a plaint faces rigorous scrutiny to prevent the introduction of an entirely new cause of action, defendants enjoy greater freedom because they merely put forth grounds to defeat the plaintiff's claim.

Referencing Pritam Singh v. Atma and others (1993), the Court held that there is no absolute legal embargo against withdrawing an admission or departing from an earlier stand in an amended written statement. The Bench noted that whether such a change carries evidentiary weight, causes prejudice, or warrants costs is a matter for the trial court to assess during final adjudication and appreciation of evidence, but it cannot justify striking off the pleading at the threshold.

Plea Of Limitation Goes To Maintainability And Cannot Constitute Abuse Of Process

The High Court held that the trial court committed a jurisdictional error in treating the introduction of a limitation plea and the omission of certain preliminary objections as an abuse of process. The Bench ruled that a plea of limitation relates directly to the maintainability of a claim and often raises pure questions of law or mixed questions of law and fact that must be adjudicated on merits.

The Court noted that the mere omission of an earlier plea or the incorporation of a limitation plea does not render a written statement scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. A litigant cannot be deprived of their statutory defence on the procedural pretext that the point was not raised in the initial written statement.

Striking Off Pleadings After Framing Of Issues Is Wholly Disproportionate

The Bench further pointed out that the plaintiff had already filed a replication to the amended written statement and the trial court had framed issues thereon before the matter was listed for plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff was thus fully conscious of the defence raised and had an opportunity to meet it.

Under such circumstances, the Court held that summarily striking off the entire written statement at the commencement of evidence was a wholly disproportionate measure. The Bench, however, clarified that restoring the written statement does not signify an endorsement of its merits, and the trial court remains free to evaluate the legal effect and evidentiary weight of any altered stand or previous admissions during trial.

Allowing the revision petition, the High Court set aside the trial court's order dated August 6, 2019, and restored the petitioner's amended written statement dated December 1, 2017, to the record. The Bench directed the trial court to proceed with the partition suit in accordance with law, clarifying that all contentions on the merits of the claims and the plea of limitation remain open for trial.

Date of Decision: 20 August 2026