# Jagroop Singh (U/A 227) v. Dist. Judge Hardoi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 251
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-02-16
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 7573 of 2015
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagroop-singh-u-a-227-v-dist-judge-hardoi-ors-43454
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.P.C.-Order VI Rule-16-Amendment in
written
statement-after
closure
of
evidence-by
proposed
amendment
petitioner wants rescind from earlier
admission of written statement-certainly
affecting rights of plaintiff-rightly rejectedpetition dismissed.
Held: Para-12
In the instant matter from the perusal of
the judgment and order passed by the
court below , the admitted position which
emerge out is that petitioner's application
for amendment in written statement has
been
rejected
on
the
ground
that
petitioner
cannot
resile
from
the
admission made by him earlier in the
written statement. Keeping in view the
above said fact as well as settled
proposition of law, defendant cannot be
allowed from reciling rather taking U turn
from the earlier statement made by him
in the written statement in the garb of
amendment that will prejudice the case of
the plaintiff and it will cause injustice to
him.
Case Law discussed:
2009 (27) LCD 1096; L.Rs. 2008 (3) ARC 911

## Text

1 All. Jagroop Singh (U/A 227) Vs. Dist. Judge Hardoi & Ors.
251
of jurisdiction much less any conflict
between the statutory provisions. Both sets of
provisions are of State legislation and have to
be read harmoniously so as to give full effect
to the statutory scheme.
7. We do not find any reason or
justification to entertain the second prayer
for seeking enforcement of a Government
Order. The State Government is vested
with adequate powers to ensure that its
orders are duly enforced, albeit in
accordance with the provisions of law.
8. Consequently, we see no reason
to entertain the writ petition. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.02.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.
Misc. Bench No. 7573 of 2015
Jagroop Singh (U/A 227) ...Petitioner
Versus
Dist. Judge Hardoi & Ors.
Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Bhagwandeen Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents:
--
C.P.C.-Order VI Rule-16-Amendment in
written
statement-after
closure
of
evidence-by
proposed
amendment
petitioner wants rescind from earlier
admission of written statement-certainly
affecting rights of plaintiff-rightly rejectedpetition dismissed.
Held: Para-12
In the instant matter from the perusal of
the judgment and order passed by the
court below , the admitted position which
emerge out is that petitioner's application
for amendment in written statement has
been
rejected
on
the
ground
that
petitioner
cannot
resile
from
the
admission made by him earlier in the
written statement. Keeping in view the
above said fact as well as settled
proposition of law, defendant cannot be
allowed from reciling rather taking U turn
from the earlier statement made by him
in the written statement in the garb of
amendment that will prejudice the case of
the plaintiff and it will cause injustice to
him.
Case Law discussed:
2009 (27) LCD 1096; L.Rs. 2008 (3) ARC 911
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.)
1. Heard Sri Bhagwandeen Sharma,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the record.
2. Facts,in brief, of the present case
are that respondent no.3-Krishan Lal
Gupta/ plaintiff filed a Regular Suit
No.1048 of 2008 ( Krishan Lal Vs.
Jagroop) in the Court of Civil Judge( S.D.)
Hardoi. In the said matter petitioner
Jagroop Singh/ defendant filed written
statement thereafter an evidence on behalf
of the plaintiff was also closed. At this
stage, on behalf of petitioner/ defendant an
application for amendment in written
statement has been filed on 28.2.2014 to
which plaintiff/ respondent has filed
objection . The trial court/ Civil Judge (
S.D.) Hardoi by order dated 10.7.2014
rejected the application under Order VI
Rule 17 CPC moved on behalf of
petitioner on the ground that plaintiff
cannot resile from the admission which has
made in the written statement. The order
dated 10.7.2014 was challenged by the
petitioner by filing Revision No. 43 of
2014( Jagroop Singh Vs. Krishan Lal
252
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gupta) . The District Judge Hardoi by
order dated 23.7.2015 rejected the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
while challenging the impugned order
submits that the impugned order passed
by opposite parties thereby rejecting the
case of the petitioner for amendment is
contrary to the provisions of law, liable to
be set aside.
4. In support of his arguments, he
has placed reliance on the judgment given
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Shushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar
and another, 2009(27) LCD 1096.
5. The provisions of amendment of
pleading provided under Order 6 Rule 17
CPC as exits today can be summarized
and crystallized as under:-
" Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with
amendment of pleadings . By Amendment Act
46 of 1999, this provision was deleted . It has
against been restored by Amendment Act 22
of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent
application for amendment being allowed
after the trial has commenced, unless the
Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of
due diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of trial.
The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute
discretion to allow amendment to any stage.
Now
,
if
application
is
filed
after
commencement of trial, it has to be shown
that in spite of the due diligence, such
amendment could not have been sought
earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous
application which are filed to delay the trial.
There is no illegality in the provision."
6.
Thus, object of Order 6, Rule 17
primarily is that if because of certain facts
not being pleaded or because of deficiencies
in the pleadings, the question involved
between the parties cannot be finally
determined
and
unless
it
is
finally
determined, there is likelihood of multiplicity
of proceedings. Order 6, Rule 17 empowers
the Court to permit such amendments which
are necessary for final determination of the
issues in dispute or real point in dispute
between the parties. Expression "new case"
has been the subject matter of discussion and
that expression has been defined to mean a
new claim based on altogether new facts and
new ideas. New case does not mean and
include in itself where there is an additional
approach to the same facts already in the
pleadings as an alternative approach. So, in
the context of the amendment application, an
additional approach to same facts cannot
amount to making out a new case.
7. The principles established by
judicial
decisions
in
respect
of
amendment of plaint are :
(i) All amendments will be generally
permissible when they are necessary for
determination of the real controversy in
the suit;
(ii) All the same, substitution of one
cause of action or the nature of the claim
for another in the original plaint or change
of the subject-matter of or controversy in
the suit is not permissible;
(iii) Introduction by amendment of
inconsistent or contradictory allegations
in negation of the admitted position on
facts, or mutually destructive allegations
of facts are also impermissible though
inconsistent
pleas
on
the
admitted
position can be introduced by way of
amendment;
(iv) In general, the amendments
should not cause prejudice to the other
side which cannot be compensated in
costs; and
1 All. Jagroop Singh (U/A 227) Vs. Dist. Judge Hardoi & Ors.
253
(v) Amendment of a claim or relief
which is barred by limitation when the
amendment is sought to be made should
not be allowed to defeat a legal right
accrued except when such consideration
is
out-weighed
by
the
special
circumstances of the case.
8. Amendment can be refused in the
following circumstances :
(i) where it is not necessary for the
purpose of determining the real question
in controversy between the parties;
(ii) where the plaintiff's suit would
be wholly displaced by the proposed
amendment;
(iii) where the effect of amendment
would take away from the defendant a
legal right which has accrued to him by
lapse of time;
(iv) where the amendment would
introduce totally different, new and
inconsistent case and the application is
made at a late stage to the proceeding; and
(v)
where
the
application
for
amendment is not made in good faith.
9. Accordingly, in brief, it can be
held that all amendments should be
allowed which satisfy the following
conditions :
(a) of not working injustice to the
other side; and
(b) of being necessary for the
purpose of determining the real question
in controversy between the parties. They
should be refused only when the other
party cannot be placed in the same
position as if the pleading had originally
been correct but the amendment would
cause him an injury which cannot be
compensated by costs.
10. Further in the case of North
Eastern
Railway
Administration,
Gorakhpur Vs. Bhawan Das (d) By
L.Rs.2008 (3) ARC 911 wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
"In so far as the principles which
govern
the
question
of
granting
or
disallowing amendments under Order VI,
Rule 17 C.P.C, ( as it stood at the relevant
time) are concerned, these are also well
settled. Order VI , Rule 17 C.P.C. Postulates
amendment of pleadings at any stage of the
proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs.
Kalgaonda Shidgonda Patil and others, AIR
1957 SC 363, which still holds the field, it
was held that all amendments ought to be
allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a)
of not working injustice to the other side, and
(b) of being necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question in controversy
between the parties. Amendments should be
refused only where the other party cannot be
placed in the same position as if the pleading
had been originally correct, but the
amendment would cause him an injury
which could not be compensated in costs.(
Also see: Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi Vs.
Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990) 1 SCC
166: 1990 SCFBRC 134)".
11. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of vide judgment dated 22.03.2006,
passed in Appeal (Civil) No. 5350-5361
of 2002 (Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.
Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors), while considering
the scope of amendment, held as under
(relevant paragraph):-
" In cases like this, the Court should
also take notice of subsequent events in
order to shorten the litigation, to preserve
and safeguard rights of both parties and to
sub-serve the ends of justice. It is settled
by catena of decisions of this Court that
the rule of amendment is essentially a rule
254
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of justice, equity and good conscience and
the power of amendment should be
exercised in the larger interest of doing
full and complete justice to the parties
before the Court.
While
considering
whether
an
application"
12. In the instant matter from the
perusal of the judgment and order passed
by the court below , the admitted position
which emerge out is that petitioner's
application for amendment in written
statement has been rejected on the ground
that petitioner cannot resile from the
admission made by him earlier in the
written statement. Keeping in view the
above said fact as well as settled
proposition of law, defendant cannot be
allowed from reciling rather taking U turn
from the earlier statement made by him in
the written statement in the garb of
amendment that will prejudice the case of
the plaintiff and it will cause injustice to
him.
13. So far the law laid down by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Sushil
Kumar
Jain
(
Supra)
is
concerned,Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the said case has held in para -9
which on reproduction reads as under:-
" That apart a careful reading of the
application for amendment of the written
statement , we are of the view that the
appellant seeks to only elaborate and
clarify the earlier inadvertence and
confusion made in his written statement.
Even assuming that there was admission
made by the appellant in his original
written statement, then also , such
admission
can
be
explained
by
amendment of his written statement even
by
taking
inconsistent
pleas
or
substituting or altering his evidence."
14. The said position does not exists
in the present case so the petitioner cannot
derive any benefit of law as laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil
Kumar Jain ( Supra) rather the same is not
applicable in the fact and circumstances
of the case.
15. For the foregoing reasons, writ
petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
-------