Petitioner's late attempt to alter defense in a specific performance suit dismissed: Delhi High Court stresses on maintaining integrity of original pleadings.

The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition seeking to amend the original written statement in a civil suit concerning the specific performance of an agreement to sell property. The judgment, delivered by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, underscores the importance of consistency and timeliness in civil pleadings, highlighting that amendments should not introduce mutually destructive defenses or significantly alter the nature of the original case.

The petitioner, Sanjeev Lakra, challenged the trial court's order which denied his application to amend the written statement in a suit filed by the respondent, Bhim Singh. The respondent had sought specific performance of an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 18.11.2021, concerning a plot in Mundka Village, Delhi. Singh alleged that he paid a part consideration of Rs. 5,00,000, which Lakra initially denied in his original written statement.

The court emphasized that amendments to written statements are generally allowed to ensure that the real issues in dispute are adjudicated. However, it warned against amendments that aim to introduce entirely new and contradictory defenses. "Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed," the court noted, citing B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai​​.

Justice Arora pointed out that the trial had already progressed significantly, with issues framed and the plaintiff's evidence stage underway. Allowing the amendment at this stage would disrupt the proceedings and cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff. The court referenced Sugeeta Chhabra v. Harish Nayar, where amendments leading to a change in the nature of the original defense were disallowed​​.

The judgment discussed that while the courts are liberal in permitting amendments to written statements, such leniency is not extended when the amendments are not bona fide, cause serious prejudice, or aim to overreach the court. The petitioner’s proposed amendments were found to be mutually incompatible with his original statements, thus failing the test of consistency and bona fides.

Justice Arora remarked, "The amendments to the written statement sought by the defendant to paragraph 4 of reply on merits if allowed, would render the entire written statement inconsistent as the para-wise reply to remaining paragraphs including paragraph nos. 3 and 6 would be wholly inconsistent with the new defence proposed to be canvassed"​​.

The High Court's dismissal of the amendment application reinforces the judiciary's commitment to ensuring integrity and consistency in legal pleadings. This judgment serves as a critical reminder that while procedural flexibility is permitted, it should not be misused to introduce conflicting defenses or to delay the legal process. The decision is likely to have significant implications for future civil litigation, particularly concerning the timing and nature of amendments to pleadings.

Date of Decision: January 4, 2024