Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court

"The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment the other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn." Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court, in a ruling dated September 15, 2026, affirmed that an amendment to a written statement intended to rectify internal inconsistencies or typographical errors does not violate the prohibition against withdrawing admissions if the factual substance of the pleading remains unchanged. A division bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that the court must adopt a liberal approach under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to ensure the real controversy between parties is effectively adjudicated.

The appeal arose from a partition suit filed by the appellant, Smt. Manju Gaind, concerning the estate of her late father. The appellant had sought a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, relying on certain paragraphs in the respondents' written statement which she claimed constituted an "unequivocal admission" of her 1/7th share in specific properties. Subsequently, the respondents moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement, arguing that the original text contained clerical errors and incorrectly categorized certain properties. The learned Single Judge allowed the amendment, leading the appellant to challenge the order before the division bench.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the amendment of the written statement permitted by the Single Judge resulted in the impermissible withdrawal of a genuine admission, and whether such an amendment was necessary for the effective adjudication of the suit. The bench was also called upon to determine if the trial court failed to record adequate reasons while allowing the amendment and disposing of the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Court Explains Scope Of Order VI Rule 17 CPC

The bench emphasized that the power to allow amendments is wide and must be exercised at any stage of the proceedings to promote the ends of justice. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai, the court noted that technicalities should not hamper the administration of justice. Amendments should be allowed if they are necessary for determining the real controversy, provided they do not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice.

Liberal Approach Toward Written Statements

The court reiterated that the principles governing the amendment of a plaint apply to a written statement, with the crucial caveat that courts are generally more generous with the latter. The bench observed that a defendant has the right to take alternative or inconsistent pleas, provided they do not result in the withdrawal of an admission that would cause injustice to the plaintiff.

"The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment the other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn."

No Withdrawal Of Genuine Admission Found

Upon examining the pleadings, the court found that the respondents’ amendment merely sought to correct the heading of properties from "Properties in Which the Plaintiff Has Received Share" to "Properties in which Mutation Entry has been made in name of Plaintiff." The underlying factual details—such as ownership records and sale deed particulars—remained identical. Consequently, the court held that no "admission" was withdrawn because the substance of the defense remained the same; the change merely corrected a labeling error that was inconsistent with the actual facts pleaded by the respondents.

Application Of Revajeetu Builders Test

The bench applied the criteria established in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, noting that the amendment was bona fide and essential for effective adjudication. The court concluded that the appellant's claim to a 1/7th share remained preserved for trial and was not foreclosed by the correction of a mere typographical heading. Finding no mala fides or fundamental alteration of the suit's character, the bench dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

Date of Decision: 15 September 2026