The High Court of Bombay dismissed this writ petition challenging an order allowing amendment to a defendant's written statement. The court held that inconsistent pleas in a written statement are permissible and the amendment was valid.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; contentions on merits kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
10.wp.6479.2017.doc
dik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6479 OF 2017 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO. 292 OF 2017 IN APPLICATION BEING EXHIBIT NO. 34 OF 2016 IN R.A.E. SUIT NO. 508/951 OF 2008
Kantilal Dharshi Shah ...Petitioner. vs Jayaben Jayant Shah ...Respondent
Mr Chandra Naik for the Petitioner.
Mr Chetan Yadav i/b R.V. & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM : B.P.COLABAWALLA, J. JUNE 20, 2017.
P.C. :
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order
passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court of Mumbai in Revision Application No.292 of 2017. By the impugned order the Appellate Bench was pleased to allow the amendment sought for by the respondent herein who is the defendant before the trial Court.
Pg 1 of 3
10.wp.6479.2017.doc
2 The impugned order was basically assailed before me
on two grounds. The first ground raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner was that the amendment has the effect of retracting the admission that has been made by the defendant. According to the learned advocate, in the plaint the plaintiff has specifically averred the relationship of landlord and tenant. In the Written Statement as originally filed, there is no specific denial of this fact. According to the learned advocate this denial comes for the first time in this amendment, and therefore, clearly there is a retraction of an admission of the relationship of landlord and tenant.
3 The second ground on which the order is assailed is that the amendment is not bonafide.
4 On going through the impugned order as well as the schedule of amendment, I do not find any merit in these contentions. One must not lose sight of the fact that this is an amendment to the Written Statement and not to the plaint. The defendant is always entitled to take inconsistent pleas in the Written Statement. I do not find that the amendment has any
10.wp.6479.2017.doc
effect of retracting any alleged admission made by the defendant earlier. The amendment, to my mind, only seeks to amplify that has already been set earlier and also raises a legal issue. At the stage of amendment, the Court is not concerned with the merits thereof.
5 I, therefore, do not find any perversity in the impugned order which allowed the amendment that was sought for by the defendant. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. All contentions on merits of the amendment are specifically kept open.
( B.P.COLABAWALLA,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether allowing amendment to a written statement amounts to retraction of admission made earlier.
Whether the amendment sought by the defendant is bonafide.
Kantilal Dharshi Shah
Jayaben Jayant Shah
B.P. Colabawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
