An amendment which seeks to withdraw or vary clear admissions made in the original pleadings, especially after the death of the party who made them, is impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Amendments affecting substantive rights and redistribution of shares in partition suits cannot be permitted under the guise of clarifying pleadings. A document referred to in the written statement may be permitted to be produced later under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC, but such permission cannot survive when the foundational amendment application is set aside. The High Court is justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 where the Trial Court permits amendments contrary to settled principles of law.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment of pleadings — Withdrawal of admissions —
An amendment which seeks to withdraw or alter clear admissions made in the original pleadings, thereby conferring a vested or valuable right on the opposite party, is impermissible and liable to be rejected.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Amendment after death of party —
After the death of a party who filed the original pleadings, legal representatives cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings so as to alter or contradict admissions made by the deceased.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — Nature of amendment —
Where the proposed amendment changes the distribution of shares in the suit property and affects substantive rights of parties, such amendment amounts to altering the basic admissions and cannot be allowed.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VIII Rule 1-A — Production of documents — Will —
Mere non-filing of a document along with the written statement does not bar its later production, particularly when the document is referred to in the original pleading. Genuineness of the document must be tested during trial.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Interlocutory applications — Interdependence —
When an amendment application is set aside, an application filed consequentially or in continuation thereof, seeking to receive a document, cannot survive and is liable to be rejected, without prejudice to liberty to file a fresh application.

Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction —
Where the Trial Court permits an amendment contrary to settled principles governing withdrawal of admissions, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted.

---

CASE FACTS

• The petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.92 of 2019, filed for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties.

• Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are defendants, claiming rights under a Will dated 18.01.2019 allegedly executed by late Gadde Venkateswara Rao.

• During pendency of I.A.No.343 of 2019 (injunction application), defendants filed:

  • I.A.No.156 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of counter-affidavit; and

  • I.A.No.871 of 2022 under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC seeking reception of the Will dated 18.01.2019.

• The Trial Court allowed both applications by orders dated 07.08.2023, imposing costs.

• Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed C.R.P.Nos.2580 and 2581 of 2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---

ANALYSIS

• The High Court examined the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, reiterating that amendments intended to withdraw admissions cannot be permitted.

• The proposed amendment sought to substitute pleadings relating to absolute ownership of defendant No.1 with life interest and remainder rights in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3.

• The Court found that:

  • The amendment would alter admitted facts pleaded by defendant No.1 during her lifetime;

  • Such alteration would materially change the distribution of shares in the suit property; and

  • No justification was offered showing necessity for determining the real controversy.

• Relying on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that amendments withdrawing admissions are impermissible.

• With respect to production of the Will:

  • The Will dated 18.01.2019 was already referred to in the written statement;

  • Genuineness must be tested during trial;

  • However, since the amendment application itself was set aside, the connected application to receive the Will could not survive.

• The Court relied on Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar to observe that procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice, while still setting aside the impugned order on technical interdependence.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. An amendment which seeks to withdraw or vary clear admissions made in the original pleadings, especially after the death of the party who made them, is impermissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

2. Amendments affecting substantive rights and redistribution of shares in partition suits cannot be permitted under the guise of clarifying pleadings.

3. A document referred to in the written statement may be permitted to be produced later under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC, but such permission cannot survive when the foundational amendment application is set aside.

4. The High Court is justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 where the Trial Court permits amendments contrary to settled principles of law.

---

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judge: V. Sujatha
Judgment Reserved on: 04.12.2025
Judgment Pronounced on: 08.01.2026
Judgment Uploaded on: 08.01.2026