- In Anzar v. Sreedeviyamma & Anr, the Kerala High Court held that an amendment application inconsistent with that of the original written statement may be submitted without withdrawing wilful admission mentioned in the statement.
- Moreover, such applications will be bound to be admissible.
- This order set aside the order of the lower Court which had dismissed an amendment application on the ground that it was inconsistent with the petitioner's stand in the written statement.
- The Court noted that "the legal position is that denial of a promissory note in the written statement can never be treated as an admission by any sense of the term. Denial of the execution of the promissory note could not be such a statement coming under the ambit of section 17 of the Evidence Act".
- The Court took reliance on Ruhaila Beevi & Ors. v. Suvarna Satyan, where the Court allowed an amendment application and held that amendment application with inconsistent pleas will be admissible even without retracting wilful admission.
- In the present case, the petitioner was a defendant in a suit before the lower Court, where his contention was that the plaintiff forged his signature on a promissory note.
- Later, the petitioner filed an amendment application with inconsistent pleas to the effect that the promissory note produced earlier by the plaintiff was created in a signed blank stamp paper issued by him.
- Subsequently, the petitioner moved the Hon'ble High Court against the dismissal of his amendment application of his written statement.
- The counsel for the respondents contended that the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner raised a totally different case and took a U-turn deviating from the original written statement.
- The Ld. Court noted that Order 8 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides for conditions for subsequent pleadings after filing of the written statement.
- The Court further noted that it must be the primary duty of the Court to decide whether the amendment sought for is absolutely necessary to decide the dispute between the parties.
- The Hon'ble Court also took note of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 and said that it rules out the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction.
- Therefore, unless the jurisdictional fact as mentioned therein is found to be existing, the Court can have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment application.
- Consequently, the Court held that the legal position is clear on this point and that is that the defendant holds a different position from that of the plaintiff in the matter of raising a plea. Hence, the defendant can take alternative and inconsistent pleas in his written statement.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha Nautiyal?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
