-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a significant ruling on the amendment of joint written statements in legal proceedings, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the necessity for unanimous consent among all signatories before any alterations can be made. The court firmly stated, "where a written statement is jointly filed by a group of defendants, it cannot be amended at the behest of one or more such defendants unless the other defendants who are signatories to the joint written statement, expressly consent to the amendments sought."
The legal challenge stemmed from a family property dispute involving rights and shares in inherited properties, as originally described in a joint written statement by multiple defendants. An application for amendment was made by one of the defendants, seeking to alter the original joint written statement to include new claims based on a will. The application led to a contested legal battle, as the amendments would affect the rights and responsibilities as initially agreed upon by all defendants.
The court thoroughly reviewed the principles governing amendments to joint written statements under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The key issue was whether an amendment could be unilaterally made by one of the joint defendants without the express consent of the others. Citing precedent, the court highlighted the necessity for maintaining unity and consent in joint defenses, particularly in matters involving shared rights and obligations.
Importance of Consent: The court noted that any amendment sought by one of the signatories must have the consent of others, ensuring all parties maintain a unified stance unless explicitly agreed otherwise. This approach is crucial in protecting the integrity of joint defenses in legal proceedings.
Review of Precedents: The judgment referenced several prior rulings, including the landmark case of Narendra Singh vs. Bhartendra Singh, reinforcing the principle that amendments to a jointly filed written statement require the agreement of all parties involved.
Legal Implications of Amendments: The court discussed the potential legal implications of allowing unilateral amendments, including the risk of prejudicing the rights of other defendants and complicating the legal proceedings.
Confirming the revisional court’s decision, the High Court upheld the order remanding the case for a detailed examination of the amendment application involving all joint defendants. The trial court was directed to ensure that any amendment to the joint written statement must be served on and consented to by all defendants, thereby facilitating a fair reconsideration in light of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
Date of Decision: 16.04.2024
Smt. Chanda Kedia And Another vs. Dwarika Prasad Kedia And Another
