Limitations on Amending an “Adopted” Written Statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Commentary on the Karnataka High Court’s Decision in Smt. Seeta v. Smt. Laxmi (2025)

1. Introduction

Court & Date: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench – 20 August 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Case Type: Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution (GM-CPC)

The petition arose out of a partition suit (O.S. No. 3/2021, Senior Civil Judge, Ankola). In the suit:

• Plaintiff: Smt. Laxmi Kom Nagesh Naik (alias Smt. Beeramma) – seeking partition and separate possession.
• Defendants: Nine siblings (petitioners herein), of whom only Defendant No. 2 filed a written statement (WS). Defendants 1 & 3-9 formally adopted that WS.

Key Issue before the High Court: Can one of the adopting defendants (Defendant No. 4) – who never signed nor filed the WS – move an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend that WS in isolation?

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The Trial Court had refused Defendant No. 4’s application (I.A. XIII) to amend the WS.
2. All defendants filed a writ petition seeking (i) certiorari to quash that refusal and (ii) an affirmative direction to allow the amendment.
3. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding:
   • Only the party who files a pleading has locus to seek its amendment.
   • Where a pleading is jointly filed, any amendment must be sought jointly by all its signatories.
   • An “adopter” who merely relies on another’s pleading, without signing or filing it, cannot unilaterally amend that pleading.
4. However, liberty was reserved to Defendant No. 2 (the actual author of the WS) to move an amendment application, which the Trial Court must consider on its own merits.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited or Relied Upon

Although the judgment is concise and does not expressly cite authorities, the reasoning aligns with earlier principles laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts on Order VI Rule 17:

• Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559 – Amendment should ordinarily be allowed unless it changes the fundamental nature of the case; however, the applicant must have locus.
• Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy, (2009) 10 SCC 84 – Set out definitive factors for exercising discretion under Order VI Rule 17.
• Harcharan v. Surinder Kaur, (1980) 2 SCC 427 – Emphasised that amendment is a matter of discretion and the right to seek it is confined to the party owning the pleading.

The present ruling extrapolates these principles to the specific scenario of “adopted” pleadings, where the question of ownership is pivotal.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Nature of a pleading: A plaint or WS is the “property” of its author. Procedurally, only the authoring party (or all joint authors) can modify it.
2. Effect of adoption: Adoption is a procedural shortcut permitting a party to stand by another’s pleading. It does not convert the adopter into a co-author of the document.
3. Joint pleadings principle: Where multiple parties sign a joint pleading, any amendment must be sought collectively to prevent conflicting versions within the same document.
4. Absence of statutory basis for unilateral amendment by an adopter: Neither Order VI Rule 17 nor any allied provision furnishes an adopter with authority to amend someone else’s pleading.
5. Resultant conclusion: Defendant No. 4 lacked locus standi; hence the Trial Court correctly rejected I.A. XIII.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Procedural Clarity: The ruling provides explicit guidance for trial courts and litigants on how “adopted” pleadings may (or may not) be amended.
• Avoidance of Forum Shopping: Prevents defendants from using adoption to later engineer amendments that could delay proceedings or introduce inconsistent defences.
• Strategic Drafting: Counsel will now ensure that every defendant who might want flexibility either (a) signs the common WS, or (b) files a brief supplemental WS of their own.
• Future Litigation: In suits involving numerous family members (partition, succession, etc.) the decision will likely be cited to insist that amendment motions emanate from the original signatories.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Order VI Rule 17 CPC (Amendment of Pleadings): Allows parties to change or add facts in their pleadings at any stage of the suit, provided it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy.
• Adoption of Written Statement: A defendant may, for convenience, state “I adopt the WS of Defendant X.” This saves repetition but does not transfer authorship.
• Writ of Certiorari: A supervisory remedy by which High Courts quash orders of subordinate courts for jurisdictional or legal errors.
• Joint Pleading: A single document signed and filed by multiple parties together—contrast with “adoption,” where filing is by one and others merely rely on it.

5. Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Smt. Seeta v. Smt. Laxmi lays down a crisp procedural norm: an adopting defendant cannot, in isolation, amend a written statement that he or she never filed or signed. The power to amend remains with (i) the original author or (ii) all joint authors acting together. By affirming this distinction, the Court safeguards procedural consistency, forestalls potential abuse of Order VI Rule 17, and provides a roadmap for multi-party civil litigation.

For litigators, the takeaway is clear—sign the pleading if you want the right to shape it later. For trial courts, the decision serves as persuasive authority when faced with similar amendment applications, reinforcing efficiency and coherence in civil procedure.