DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) IN a suit of 1995 the sole defendant applied for amendment of its written statement.
(2.) IT was contended on behalf of the defendant that, Courts must be liberal in allowing amendment more so when amendment to written statement was sought. The proposed amendments to the written statement did not alter the nature and character of the written statement. The proposed amendments merely explained the case of the defendant in greater detail. According to the defendant, the trial of the suit did not commence. The first witness of the plaintiffs was examined in chief. The defendant could not apply for amendment earlier as the previous Advocate -on -record died. The defendant applied for amendment of the written statement immediately after the present Advocate -on -record was engaged by the defendant. 2. The defendant relied upon the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and on 2012 AIR Supreme Court Weekly page 5419 (Abdul Rehman & Anr. v. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors.), 2007 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases page 167 (Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V. & Ors.), 2006 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases page 498 (Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh & Anr.) and 2005 Volume 13 Supreme Court Cases page 89 (Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan) on the point of amendment. It was also contended by the defendant that, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs in the event the amendments as prayed for were allowed. On behalf of the plaintiffs the amendment application was opposed. The proposed amendments were commented upon. It was submitted that, the proposed amendments narrated facts which were known to the defendant at the point when they filed the written statement. In the application of the defendant there was no explanation as to the facts which were not known to the defendant at the time of filing of its written statement and the facts which they subsequently discovered. It was contended that since the trial of the suit had commenced the defendant's right to obtain an order for amendment was restricted only by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant was required to make out a case coming within the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the proposed amendments to be allowed. Such case was not made out by the defendant in the application.
(3.) IT was also contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that, by the proposed amendments the defendant was seeking to introduce a new case which was inconsistent with the existing written statement. Paragraph 7 of the written statement which was one of the amendments proposed was commented upon by the plaintiffs. It was submitted that, the basis of the defence of the defendant was sought to be changed by the proposed amendment. The nature and character of the written statement was sought to be changed by the proposed amendment.;