Written Statement Can Be Amended At Early Stage, But Production Of Documents Require Separate Leave: Delhi High Court
Allows to introduce omitted factual pleadings, reiterates liberal approach under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
The Delhi High Court has allowed the defendants in a commercial recovery suit to amend their written statement, holding that courts must adopt a liberal approach in permitting amendments at an early stage of proceedings, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposite party and no new cause of action is introduced.
Under Order XI Rule 1(7) and Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 a defendant may file additional documents only with the court’s leave through a separate application under Order XI Rule 10, and cannot introduce them via an Order VI Rule 17 amendment plea.
Accordingly, while permitting the amendment to the written statement but refusing to take the documents on record, a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “…It is now well settled that courts must be liberal in allowing the amendments to pleadings, especially when the same is sought for at the early stage of the suit unless the amendment sought tries to raise a claim that has been barred by limitation. Such is not the fact in this case. The Defendants only seek to introduce the fact that the Defendants had filed a suit being CS(COMM) 97/2017 before this Court against the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,17,10,185/- along with interest”.
Senior Advocate Pawanjit Singh Bindra appeared for the plaintiff and Advocate Ankur Mahindro appeared for the defendant.
The present matter was a recovery suit where the defendants sought amendment of their written statement to incorporate detailed facts relating to a Memorandum of Understanding, supply of materials, dishonoured cheques, and parallel litigation between the parties. The defendants contended that these facts were inadvertently omitted earlier and were necessary for proper adjudication of the real controversy.
To the contrary, the plaintiff argued that the defendants were already aware of these facts and should have pleaded them in the written statement, and that through the application they sought to alter the nature of the suit, which is impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
However, rejecting the plaintiff’s objection that the amendment would alter the nature of the suit, the Court noted that the proceedings were still at a nascent stage, with issues yet to be framed.
The Bench observed that amendment of pleadings is intended to advance justice and not punish parties for drafting errors, relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256 and LIC v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd (2022) 16 SCC 1.
Accordingly, the amendment to the written statement was allowed, but the documents relied upon by the defendants were excluded at this stage, with liberty reserved to seek appropriate leave in accordance with law.
The suit has been listed for further proceedings.
Cause Title: M/s Aerocomfort Anushka JV v. M/s Krypton Height Builders & Infrastructure [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:618]
Plaintiff: Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Sr Adv. Ms. Madhu Sudan, Vikhyat Oberoi, Ankit Kakkar, Vedantika Shreya Mehra, Ravi Sharma and Fazal Haroon, Advocates.
Defendants: Ankur Mahindro, Alok Tripathi, Mohit Dagar, Amitosh and Creesha Shastri, Advocates.