On December 16, Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that while allowing amendment of a written statement, the general principle is that the amendment should be allowed even if it amounts to adding new grounds of defence, substituting or altering a defence, or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement.

The bench, made it clear that "the same principle cannot be applied while considering an application for amendment of a plaint as the same stands on a different footing. Adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint is certainly objectionable". The bench was hearing a petition in which the petitioner challenged a Munsiff court order in which an application for amendment of the plaint filed by him was denied. Order 6 Rule 11 clearly states that pleadings can be amended at any stage of the proceedings, and the Court must be liberal in granting the amendment request. However, the bench clarified the various yardsticks that must be used when amending the plaint and the written statement".

In explaining the distinction, Justice Dhar stated that while allowing amendment of a written statement, the general principle is that the amendment should be allowed even if it amounts to adding new grounds of defence, substituting or altering a defence, or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement; however, the same principle cannot be applied when considering an application for amendment of a plaint because it is on a different footing.

The Court held that "Even the cause of action is sought to be changed by the plaintiff by amending the para of the plaint which relates to the cause of action. In the original suit, the plaintiff has claimed that he had sought partition of the property from defendant No.1 and when he refused,he filed the suit but by way of proposed amendment, the plaintiff has pleaded that he had sought possession of the property from defendant No.1 which he refused".

The bench also stated that inconsistent pleas may be raised and subsequent events may be incorporated through amendment, but only when the overall cause of action is changed. There is no doubt that a liberal approach must be taken when considering an application for amendment of the pleadings in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, but this does not mean that the plaintiff should be allowed to establish a completely new cause of action or incorporate new pleas that are inconsistent with the pleadings of the original plaint, according to the bench.

Case Title : Abdul Aziz Bhat Vs Mohammad Iqbal Bhat & Ors.
Citation: OWP No.1353/2011
 
Link: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=Wvv66Dud4dpqZq8Ja%2B1FGA1lvccE3ER5IFkuD8WX7TBxGNLg4TIFYij4VD8%2FSKD4&caseno=OWP/1353/2011&cCode=2&appFlag=