Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Karnataka HC : Written Statement Can Be Amended Only by Who Filed It, Not by Those Who Adopted It
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition seeking to quash the trial court’s refusal to allow an amendment of a written statement. The Court recorded that only the party who has filed a pleading is entitled to seek its amendment. Since the written statement had been filed solely by one defendant and merely adopted by others, the application for amendment by another defendant was held impermissible. The Court accordingly upheld the trial court’s order and dismissed the writ petition, while reserving liberty to the original defendant to move for amendment.
The matter originated from a suit in O.S.No.3/2021 before the Senior Civil Judge at Ankola. The suit was filed seeking partition and separate possession of the suit property. In response, a written statement was filed by defendant No.2. The remaining defendants, including defendants No.1 and 3 to 9, adopted the written statement submitted by defendant No.2. Among these, defendant No.4 later sought to introduce an amendment in the adopted written statement.
An application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs amendments of pleadings. This application, registered as I.A.No.XIII, was filed by defendant No.4. The stated ground was that since defendant No.4 had adopted the written statement of defendant No.2, he should be permitted to amend the same to include additional contentions.
The trial court considered the application and rejected it on 07 February 2025. The rejection order stated that defendant No.4 was not the party who originally filed the written statement. Since amendments can only be sought by those who filed the pleading, the trial court concluded that the application was not maintainable.
Aggrieved by this decision, the defendants, including those who had adopted the written statement, approached the High Court through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The reliefs sought in the petition included the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court’s order on I.A.No.XIII, and consequential permission to allow the amendment of the written statement filed by defendant No.2. The petitioners further requested the Court to issue any writ, order, or direction deemed appropriate to serve the ends of justice.
The petitioners argued that as they had adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.2, they should also be treated as if they had filed the same. Therefore, they contended that they were entitled to seek amendment. They stressed that the amendment was necessary for the proper adjudication of the case and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The respondent opposed the writ petition and defended the trial court’s decision. The respondent stated that the written statement was filed only by defendant No.2. Merely adopting a pleading, the respondent argued, does not confer the right to amend it. Since the pleading was not jointly filed, an individual defendant who had not authored it could not seek its amendment.
The High Court carefully reviewed the factual matrix and procedural history. The Court noted that all the defendants were before it, but the crucial fact remained that the written statement had been authored and filed exclusively by defendant No.2. Other defendants, including defendant No.4, had only adopted the statement without signing or independently filing it.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj recorded several observations in the oral order pronounced on 20 August 2025. The Court stated: “Though all the defendants are before this Court, the fact remains that the written statement was filed only by defendant No.2 and adopted by other defendants.”
The Court then examined the implications of adoption of pleadings. It stated: “Defendant No.4 only having adopted the written statement, but not being a signatory to the written statement or having filed the written statement individually, filed an application to amend the written statement.” The Court pointed out that this was not a case where the amendment was sought by all defendants jointly or by the defendant who had originally filed the pleading.
On the legal principle regarding amendments, the Court recorded: “It is only for the person who has filed any particular pleading who can seek for amendment of that pleading.” The Court clarified that in situations where a joint plaint or joint written statement is filed, an amendment can be sought by all plaintiffs or all defendants together. However, “An individual plaintiff or an individual defendant cannot seek to amend the plaint or written statement filed jointly.”
The Court also noted: “In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, it would not be permissible for defendant No.4, who has not filed a written statement, to seek amendment of a written statement not filed by defendant No.4.” Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court’s order rejecting I.A.No.XIII.
The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition. It recorded: “As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. The petition stands dismissed.” The Court reserved liberty for the concerned defendant, noting: “Liberty is reserved to defendant No.2 to file an amendment application, which has to be considered on merits by the trial Court.” The Court stated: “It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or the amendment sought for.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sriyuths. S.B. Doddagoudar; Shri S.G. Nandoor and A.C. Chakalabbi Associates, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sri Chandrashekhar M. Hosamani, Advocate
Case Title: Seeta W/o Kariyanna Nayak & Others v. Laxmi Kom Nagesh Naik @ Beeramma
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:10507
Case Number: WP No.102555 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
