Amendments Should Not Contradict Previous Admissions: High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Rejection of Written Statement Amendment

Share:
Teacher’ personal College Passport land criminal relationship Married 13Business 8 Property NI Act income written Law investigation contract municipal evidence money written loving divorce evidence motor loving medicalsuicide prima nature factor truck investigation dealing proof Calcutta High Court land pocso landmark

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Calcutta, presided over by the Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, upheld the decision of a trial court to reject an application for the amendment of a written statement in a longstanding eviction suit, underlining the principles governing the amendment of pleadings.

The case, titled Pratyush Kumar Ray Vs. Khaitan Consultants Ltd. & Ors. (C.O 55 of 2018), involved an appeal against the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendants to amend their written statement to challenge the established landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff.

Justice Chaudhuri, in his judgment, emphasized the legal principle that amendments should not introduce new facts that substantially alter the original nature of the pleadings or contradict previous admissions. This principle was crucial in denying the application for amendment. “Amendments should be made for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties,” the judge stated.

The defendants, who are the legal heirs of the original tenant, sought to include facts that would dispute the landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff. However, the Court found that such amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the original defense and dispute admissions made previously by the defendants.

In his judgment, Justice Chaudhuri cited various precedents to support the decision, including the landmark cases of State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Town Municipal Council and Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeeb Builders Private Limited and Anr. These cases underlined the court’s discretion in allowing amendments to pleadings and the limitations thereof.

The Court also directed the trial court to expedite the conclusion of this long-pending suit, emphasizing the need for a swift resolution without unnecessary adjournments. This case, dating back to 1996, has seen various legal twists and turns, including prior appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of Decision: 17 November, 2023

Pratyush Kumar Ray Vs Khaitan Consultants Ltd. & Ors.

Download Judgment

Share: