Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Amendment of Written Statement, Rules Subsequent Events Can Be Brought on Record

Case Name: Harbans Singh & Another v. Major Singh
Date of Judgment: January 5, 2015
Citation: CR No. 8866 of 2014
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court’s order permitting amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, holding that subsequent events occurring after the filing of the written statement can legitimately be incorporated to aid proper adjudication. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia reaffirmed that procedural amendments should be viewed liberally, especially when they assist the court in resolving the real controversy between the parties, and that delay alone cannot be a ground to deny amendment when costs can compensate the opposite party.

Summary: The petitioners, Harbans Singh and another, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated December 15, 2009. In the suit, they mentioned that they had earlier filed a separate suit for permanent injunction relating to the same transaction. The respondent-defendant filed a written statement on October 6, 2010. Thereafter, the earlier injunction suit was withdrawn by the plaintiffs on November 19, 2010 — a subsequent event that occurred after the filing of the written statement. The defendant later moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of his written statement to incorporate the fact of withdrawal of that earlier suit.

The Trial Court, vide order dated November 3, 2014, allowed the amendment, observing that it related to a subsequent event and would help in the effective adjudication of the dispute. Costs of ₹2,000 were imposed on the defendant for the delay, and the case was fixed for replication. The plaintiffs approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the amendment was belated and should not have been allowed.

Justice Sandhawalia upheld the trial court’s decision, holding that the amendment merely sought to bring on record an admitted subsequent fact and did not change the nature of the case. Relying on Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons (2009) 10 SCC 84, the Court reiterated that amendments must be allowed if they are essential for determining the real question in controversy, are bona fide, and do not cause prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs. The Court also emphasized that procedural technicalities should not obstruct substantive justice and that mere delay cannot justify refusal of amendment.

Decision: Finding no illegality or irregularity in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition as meritless and upheld the permission to amend the written statement, subject to the costs already imposed.