[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Sanjay Badoni vs Pradeep Chopra And Another on 25 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2113
Judgment delivered on:25.03.2026
Judgment reserved on:05.01.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1050 of 2024
Sanjay Badoni ......Petitioner
Vs.
Pradeep Chopra and Another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel assisted by Mr. D.S. Negi, learned
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the Respondents.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated
27.03.2024 passed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge,
Haridwar in SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023 (Sanjay Badoni vs. Pradeep
Chopra and another), whereby the amendment application filed by the
petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure
seeking incorporation of a clarificatory and alternative plea in the
written statement came to be rejected.
2. The controversy, in brief, arises out of SCC Case No. 1 of 2021
instituted by the respondents herein as plaintiffs for recovery of arrears
of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question on the
ground of default in payment of rent and termination of tenancy. The
learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record,
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree
1
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1050 of 2024---------Sanjay Badoni Vs Pradeep Chopra and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2113
dated 10.05.2023 holding, inter alia, that the provisions of U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 were not applicable to the property in dispute and further
directed the defendant to pay mesne profits.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred SCC Revision No. 9 of
2023 before the learned District Judge, Haridwar. During pendency of
the said revision, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI
Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement for
incorporation of a clarificatory and explanatory averment and for
raising an alternative plea regarding continuance of tenancy. The said
amendment application, however, came to be rejected by the Revisional
Court by the impugned order dated 27.03.2024, primarily on the
ground that the amendment was not permissible at that stage.
4. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of the amendment application and
alleging jurisdictional error and illegality in exercise of discretion by
the Revisional Court, the petitioner has invoked the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
seeking interference with the impugned order.
5. The record further reflects that the respondents herein, as plaintiffs, had
instituted SCC Case No. 1 of 2021 before the Court of JSCC / Civil
Judge (S.D.), Haridwar seeking recovery of arrears of rent and eviction
of the petitioner from the shop in dispute on the allegation that the
petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 733/- per month, was in arrears
of rent since 01.10.2020 and that the tenancy stood terminated through
notice dated 13.12.2020. It was also pleaded that the property in
question was a new construction assessed for the first time in the year
1987 and, therefore, exempt from the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972.
2
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1050 of 2024---------Sanjay Badoni Vs Pradeep Chopra and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2113
6. The petitioner herein, as defendant, contested the suit by filing written
statement asserting, inter alia, that he had been a tenant since the time
of the previous owner on the basis of lease dated 14.05.1997; that the
property was an old construction; that the rent had been regularly
tendered; that the plaintiffs had refused to accept rent sent through
money order; and that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
7. After evidence of the parties, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and
decree dated 10.05.2023 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs
holding that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not
applicable and directed eviction of the defendant along with payment of
arrears and mesne profits. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred
SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023, during pendency whereof the amendment
application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC came to be rejected by
the Revisional Court vide order dated 27.03.2024, which has been
impugned in the present writ petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court
committed manifest illegality in rejecting the amendment application
by entering into the merits of the case, which was impermissible while
deciding an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It was contended
that the proposed amendment was merely clarificatory and explanatory
in nature and did not withdraw any admission nor introduce a new case.
10. It was further submitted that the amendment was necessary for
proper adjudication of the controversy and for determining the real
question in dispute between the parties. The petitioner had acted with
due diligence and the amendment was sought bonafide during
3
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1050 of 2024---------Sanjay Badoni Vs Pradeep Chopra and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2113
pendency of the revision without causing any prejudice to the
respondents.
11. Learned counsel argued that the law relating to amendment of
written statement requires a liberal approach and even inconsistent or
alternative pleas are permissible, particularly when no serious injustice
is caused to the opposite party. It was thus submitted that the impugned
order suffers from jurisdictional error, non-application of mind and
failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the court.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned order and submitted that the amendment application was
rightly rejected as the petitioner sought to introduce a new and
inconsistent defence at a belated stage of proceedings.
13. It was contended that by way of proposed amendment the
petitioner intended to withdraw earlier admissions and set up a fresh
case, which is impermissible in law. The amendment was barred by the
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC as the trial had already concluded and
no satisfactory explanation of due diligence had been furnished.
14. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged lease relied
upon by the petitioner was unregistered and inadmissible in evidence
and the tenancy had already been terminated in accordance with law. It
was argued that the amendment was neither necessary for adjudication
of the case nor bona fide and, therefore, the Revisional Court rightly
exercised its discretion in rejecting the same.
15. Upon due consideration, this Court observes that the controversy
in the present petition is confined to the legality and propriety of the
order dated 27.03.2024 whereby the learned Revisional Court rejected
the amendment application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule
17 CPC during pendency of SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023. It is not in
4
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1050 of 2024---------Sanjay Badoni Vs Pradeep Chopra and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2113
dispute that the amendment was sought in the written statement and not
in the plaint.
16. The settled position of law is that the primary object of allowing
amendment of pleadings is to ensure that the real controversy between
the parties is adjudicated upon and that technicalities do not defeat
substantive justice. The Court, while dealing with an application under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC, is required to examine whether the proposed
amendment is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the
dispute and whether it causes serious prejudice to the opposite party
which cannot be compensated in law.
17. It is equally well settled that amendment of written statement
stands on a different footing than amendment of plaint. The defendant
is entitled to raise alternative and even inconsistent pleas, so long as the
basic structure of defence is not completely altered and no clear
admission is sought to be withdrawn in a manner causing irretrievable
prejudice to the opposite party. A more liberal approach is warranted
while considering amendment in written statement.
18. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner sought
incorporation of a clarificatory and explanatory plea and also intended
to raise an alternative defence in the event the property in question is
held to be outside the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The
amendment was defensive in nature. It neither introduced a wholly new
cause of action nor sought to displace the foundational defence already
taken in the written statement. Rather, it was intended to supplement
and elaborate the existing stand. The law consistently recognizes that
amendment of written statement is to be viewed more liberally than
amendment of plaint.
5
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1050 of 2024---------Sanjay Badoni Vs Pradeep Chopra and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2113
19. The learned Revisional Court, however, while rejecting the
amendment application, appears to have examined the sustainability of
the defence on merits and the admissibility of certain documents, which
exercise was beyond the scope of enquiry at the stage of deciding
amendment. The Court was not required to adjudicate upon the
correctness or ultimate success of the defence sought to be
incorporated. The correctness of the plea is a matter to be tested at the
stage of final adjudication and not at the stage of amendment.
20. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires the Court to
consider whether the party, despite due diligence, could not have raised
the matter before commencement of trial. In the present case, the
amendment was sought during pendency of the revision proceedings.
The petitioner had explained that the amendment was clarificatory in
nature and intended to bring on record an alternative plea already
germane to the controversy. The explanation furnished cannot be said
to be wholly unsatisfactory or lacking bona fides.
21. The Revisional Court has not recorded any categorical finding
that the petitioner lacked due diligence or that the amendment was mala
fide. The rejection appears to be premised more on apprehension
regarding merits than on the statutory parameters governing
amendment.The respondents have also failed to demonstrate any real or
irreparable prejudice that would be caused if the amendment is
permitted.
22. It also deserves consideration that the amendment, if allowed,
would not have resulted in reopening of concluded evidence before the
Trial Court. The matter was pending in revision and the respondents
would have had adequate opportunity to respond to the amended plea.
No irreversible prejudice is demonstrated from the record. Where the
subordinate court fails to apply settled principles governing amendment
6
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1050 of 2024---------Sanjay Badoni Vs Pradeep Chopra and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2113
of pleadings and exercises jurisdiction in a manner resulting in
miscarriage of justice, interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution becomes warranted.
23. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Revisional
Court has misdirected itself by entering into the merits of the defence
and by adopting a restrictive approach inconsistent with the settled
liberal principles applicable to amendment of written statement. The
discretion vested in it has not been exercised in accordance with law.
24. The amendment sought by the petitioner is necessary for
determining the real controversy between the parties and for complete
adjudication of the dispute pending in revision. Denial of such
opportunity would result in curtailing the petitioner's right to place his
full defence before the Court and may lead to multiplicity of
proceedings.
ORDER
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that
the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned Vth
Additional District Judge, Haridwar suffers from material irregularity
and failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with settled legal
principles governing amendment of pleadings.
The impugned order is accordingly set aside.
The amendment application filed by the petitioner under Order
VI Rule 17 CPC stands allowed. The petitioner shall carry out the
amendment within a period to be fixed by the Revisional Court.
The Revisional Court shall thereafter afford opportunity to the
respondents to file consequential pleadings, if so advised, and shall
proceed to decide SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023 expeditiously, strictly in
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1050 of 2024---------Sanjay Badoni Vs Pradeep Chopra and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2113
accordance with law and without being influenced by any observation
made in the present judgment on merits of the case.
The writ petition stands allowed.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:25.03.2026
NR/
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1050 of 2024---------Sanjay Badoni Vs Pradeep Chopra and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
