• If the former is the case, the suit is a nullity and no amendment can cure it.

• If the latter is the case, prima facie, there ought to be an amendment because the general rule is that the Court should always allow an amendment where any loss to the opposing party can be compensated for by costs.

The Present case
• In the present case, the plaintiff was competent to sue in his own name as Manager of the Hindu undivided family to which the business belonged; he says he sued on behalf of the family in the business name.

Decision
• Since the name in which the action was instituted was merely a mis-description of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises;
• The plaint must be deemed to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff on the date on which it was originally instituted.

• The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant seeking eviction on the ground of his being a licensee.
• In the written statement the defendant [appellant] pleaded that he was not a licensee but a lessee. During trial the defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement to incorporate an alternative plea that in case the Court found that the defendant was a licensee, he was not liable to be evicted as according to him the licence was irrevocable.
• Acting upon the licence he had executed works of permanent nature and incurred expenses in execution of the same, his licence couldnot be revoked by the grantor under Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act.
• The prayer was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the proposed amendment was mutually destructive which, if allowed, would amount to permitting the defendant to withdraw the admission allegedly made by him in the main written statement.

The Law
• The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just.
• The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice.
• It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach.
• Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs.
• Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties.
• Amendments are allowed in pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Amendments of written statements
• The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements.
• The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event.
• The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence…
• All amendments… should be allowed… provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action…
• Inconsistent and contradictory allegations… should not be allowed…
• Proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice…
• No amendment should be allowed which results in defeating a legal right…

Present case
• The defendant wanted to amend the written statement…
• The plea sought to be raised is neither inconsistent nor repugnant…
• The alternative plea… is in fact the extension of the plea of the plaintiff…

Decision
• The defendant is permitted to amend the written statement… subject to paying arrears and costs of Rs. 3000.