Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Mere Clarification of Preliminary Objections Not Prejudicial: P&H High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Allowing Amendment of Written Statement

“Foundational Plea Already on Record – Amendment Only Clarificatory” – Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition, affirming the order of the trial court dated 16 November 2022, which allowed defendant-respondent No.1 to amend his written statement in a suit for specific performance. The High Court held that the amendment sought was merely clarificatory and did not amount to a retraction of admissions or cause any prejudice to the plaintiff.

The case pertained to a civil suit filed by Vineet Sehgal seeking possession of land measuring 8 kanals through specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 27 January 2012. In his original written statement, respondent No.1 (defendant) had taken a stand in the preliminary objections that ₹12,50,000/- was received by him only on account of his own share in the property, and that the endorsement showing ₹28,00,000/- on the back of the agreement was forged and fabricated.

However, this clarification was not reiterated in the body of the written statement under the merits. An application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was later filed by the defendant to amend certain paragraphs of the written statement to harmonize them with the preliminary objections, primarily regarding the nature of receipt of payment and the alleged fabrication of endorsement.

The petitioner opposed the amendment, arguing that it was filed at the “fag-end” of trial and amounted to a withdrawal of admissions made earlier, thereby causing prejudice to the plaintiff’s case.

Justice Alka Sarin rejected the challenge, holding that the amendment was not a change in stance but a clarification of what was already stated in the preliminary objections:

“The foundation of the amendment is already there in the preliminary objections and the amendment now sought is clarificatory in nature.”

It was also noted that the counsel for the defendant had made a statement before the trial court that no additional evidence would be led following the amendment. Thus, no delay or procedural disadvantage would be caused to the plaintiff.

While addressing the petitioner’s contention of prejudice, the Court emphasized that the proposed amendment related to an essential issue in dispute—namely, whether ₹12,50,000/- was received only on behalf of respondent No.1 and whether the endorsement of ₹28,00,000/- was forged. Since these allegations already formed the basis of preliminary objections, the Court held that allowing the amendment would aid in the proper adjudication of the matter:

“The amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature and would be required for determining the controversy in dispute.”

Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order allowing the amendment was upheld. All pending applications were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: 23 May 2025