B.K.N. PILLAI versus P. PILLAI AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 13-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. KURDUKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

_,,. 
B.K.N. PILLAI 
A 
v. 
P. PILLAI AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 13, 1999 
[S.P. KURDUKAR AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder 6 Rule 17-Pleadings-Amendment 
of-All amendments of pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for 
determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed C 
amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on t!ze basis 
of which the original /is was raised or defence taken-In such cases court 
should not ·adopt hypertechnical approach. 
Respondent/plaintiff filed suit against appellant/defendant seeking his 
eviction on the ground that he was a licensee. Appellant/defendant pleaded in D 
his written statement that he was not a licensee but a lessee, but after a 
prolonged delay he filed an application for amendment of the written statement, 
seeking to incorporate the plea that in case he is not held lessee, he was 
entitled to the benefit of Section 60(b) of Indian Easement Act, 1882 according 
to which his licence cannot be revoked by the grantor. 
The trial court, and in appeal, the high Court, rejected the plea on the 
ground that the proposed amendment amounted to withdrawal of the statement 
made in the written statement. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1. The finding of the High Court that the proposed amendment 
virtually amounted to withdrawal of any admission made by the appellant and 
that such withdrawal was likely to cause irretrievable prejudice to the 
resp_ondent, cannot be agreed to. The plea sought to be raised is neither 
inconsistent nor repugnant to the pleas already raised in defence. The 
alternative plea sought to be incorporated in the written statement is in fact G 
the extension of the pleas of the respondent/plaintiff and rebuttal to the issue 
framed regarding liability of the appellant of being dispossessed on proof of 
the fact that he was a licensee liable to be evicted in accordance with the 
}\TOVisions of law. The mere fact that the appellant had filed the application 
271 
H 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A after a prolonged delay could not be made a ground for rejecting his prayer 
particularly when the respondent/plaintiff could be compensated by costs. 
(276-E; 276-C-EJ 
2.1. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either 
party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as 
B may be just The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised 
at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. It is true that the 
amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all 
circumstances. But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such 
prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should 
C be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be 
compensa$ed with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to 
hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. 
Amendments are allowed in the pleading to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of 
litigation. (273-G-H; 274-A) 
D 
A.K. Gupta & Sons v. Damodar Valley Corporation, (1966) 1 SCR 796; 
Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors., (1974) 2 SCC 393 and Ganesh 
Trading Company v. Moji Ram, (1978) 2 SCC 91, referred to. 
2.2. The principles applicable to the amendments to the plaint are equally 
E applicable to the amendments of the written statement The courts are more 
generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of 
prejudice is less likely to operate in that event The defendant has a right to 
take alternative plea in defence which is subject to an exception that by the 
proposed amendment other side should not be subjected to injustice and that 
any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn. All amendments 
F of the pleadings should be allowed which are· necessary for determination of 
the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed a~endment does not 
alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis 
was raised or defence taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in 
negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations 
of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to 
G the pleadings. Proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the 
other side which can not be compensated by costs. No amendment should be 
allowed which amounts to o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.