Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Effect Of An Admission In Pleading Can't Be Diluted By Proposed Amendment At Appellate Stage: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a party cannot amend its pleadings at the appellate stage with the intention of withdrawing admissions made earlier, unless a valid and satisfactory justification is provided. The court clarified that under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), courts have discretionary authority to permit amendments to pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, but such amendments must be considered just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The High Court emphasized that this power is not automatic or absolute and should not be used to allow parties to change their case to the detriment of the opposing party, especially after a decision has been rendered by the trial court based on original pleadings.

In this particular case, the petitioner attempted to introduce an amendment—referred to as Amendment No. VII—after the conclusion of the trial. The trial court had already permitted this amendment, but the petitioner failed to formally incorporate it into the pleadings. Additionally, the petitioner only provided a handwritten version of the amendment to the defendants rather than a proper typed copy. The High Court observed that the petitioner did not offer any explanation for this delay and failed to clarify why the amendment was not pursued earlier during the trial. It noted that permitting such an amendment at the appellate stage would undermine the admissions already made in the original pleadings, which had been relied upon by the trial court in reaching its decision.

The High Court stressed that once an admission has been made in a pleading, it carries significant evidentiary value and cannot be simply erased or modified without strong grounds. Attempting to do so at a later stage, particularly in appeal, would unfairly prejudice the rights that have accrued to the opposing party based on the original admission. The court explained that admissions are binding and form the basis of the issues that are decided at trial, and any effort to withdraw or alter such admissions must be scrutinized with great care.

Moreover, the court pointed out that there was no effort made by the petitioner to show that the amendment was essential for resolving the dispute between the parties. Nor was there any indication that the petitioner could not have known the facts earlier or that the amendment was being introduced in good faith. The court concluded that allowing the amendment in such circumstances would be unjust and would defeat the very purpose of the legal process.

In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court held that amendments to pleadings that aim to withdraw admissions cannot be allowed at the appellate stage without adequate justification. It ruled that the trial court’s permission of the amendment was improper, and the petitioner’s failure to act diligently and responsibly in implementing the amendment could not be overlooked. The judgment reinforces the principle that pleadings must remain consistent and that parties must act with due diligence throughout the legal process.