High Court Of Delhi Holds That Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Permitted To Withdraw Clear Admissions And Set Up A Wholly Inconsistent Defence.

The High Court of Delhi, by way of its judgment dated 25.03.2026, in the matter of Smt. Bindu Sharma v. Kapil Sud & Anr.¹, held that although courts adopt a liberal approach while allowing amendments to written statements under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, such amendments cannot be permitted where they seek to withdraw clear and categorical admissions and substitute an entirely contradictory defence.

The issue before the court was whether the written statement could be permitted to be amended after a lapse of more than four years in order to withdraw earlier admissions.

The court held that the law governing the amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is well settled. While the power of amendment is wide and courts ordinarily adopt a liberal approach, such discretion is circumscribed by certain settled limitations. One 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. Further, the court observed that the proposed amendment did not merely clarify or elaborate the defence but sought to completely replace its earlier admissions with introduction of a diametrically opposite case. Allowance of such an amendment would cause irretrievable prejudice to the other party and cannot be permitted. Accordingly, the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was dismissed and the suit was directed to proceed on the basis of the original written statement.

Footnote

1. FAO(OS) 3/2026.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.