CPC | Amendment Can't Be Used To Retract Admissions Conferring Rights On Opposite Party: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an amendment of pleadings cannot be permitted to retract clear admissions that confer valuable rights on the opposite party, thereby setting aside an order which had allowed a defendant to substantially alter his written statement after more than four years.A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar observed,“While the power of amendment is wide and courts ordinarily adopt a liberal approach, such discretion is circumscribed by certain settled limitations. One of such restriction is that a party cannot ordinarily be permitted to withdraw clear and categorical admissions made in the pleadings, particularly when such admissions confer a valuable right upon the opposite party.”It thus quashed the Single Judge's order permitting amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.The case arose out of a family dispute concerning a property in the city's Green Park area, where the plaintiff had sought declaration, partition and injunction. In his original written statement filed in 2019, one of the defendants had supported the plaintiff's claim, acknowledged that the property ought to be equally divided among the siblings, and expressed lack of knowledge about an alleged Will set up by another defendant.However, after a lapse of over four years, the same defendant moved an application seeking to amend his written statement. By way of the proposed amendment, he sought to take a completely contrary stand, asserting the validity of the Will, claiming that the property was self-acquired, and opposing the relief of partition.The High Court found that the proposed amendments does not merely elaborate or clarify the defence, rather, it completely displaces the earlier admissions and substitute an entirely contrary case.“The defence originally aligned with the Appellant and for the suit to be decreed; the amended defence aligns with the Respondent No. 1 and seeks dismissal of the suit. In effect, the proposed amendment results in withdrawal of unequivocal admissions regarding equal inheritance and the Appellant's entitlement to partition decree. Such admissions, once made in the Written Statement, constitute substantive evidence and create valuable rights in the favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff. Permitting their withdrawal through amendment would deprive the Appellant/Plaintiff of the legitimate advantage arising there from,” it observed.The Bench also observed that the explanation offered by the defendant that the earlier stand was taken under a mistaken belief— appears to be an afterthought.“The belated attempt to resile from earlier pleadings, under the guise of mistake, is thus neither bona fide nor tenable. The proposed amendment, therefore, cannot be justified as a case of subsequent discovery of facts,” it said.The Court added that delay of more than four years in seeking the amendment also assumes considerable significance. “While mere delay, in isolation, may not be fatal, its impact cannot be overlooked where the proposed amendment seeks to withdraw clear admissions and fundamentally alter the stand earlier set up. In such circumstances, the delay assumes a material character, particularly when no satisfactory or convincing explanation has been furnished to justify the belated attempt,” it said. As such, the High Court set aside the impugned order and dismissed the amendment application.Appearance: Mr. Akhil Sachar, Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan, Ms. Kashish Maheshwari and Ms. Babita Rawat, Advocates for Appellant; Ms. Tamali Wad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit, Ms. Harshita, Mr. Karan, Mr. Varyam, Ms. Palak, Mr. SD Singh, Ms.Kamla, Mr. Sidharth, Mr. Manan, Advocates for Defendant No-1.Case title: Smt. Bindu Sharma v. Kapil Sud And AnrCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 317Case no.: FAO(OS) 3/2026Click here to read order

CPC | Amendment Can't Be Used To Retract Admissions Conferring Rights On Opposite Party: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags