Summary
The High Court reversed an order allowing amendment of a written statement after evaluating the proposed joint-family defence on its merits. The Court restored the amendment because it elaborated an existing defence, withdrew no admission and caused no prejudice; the supervisory jurisdiction had been exceeded.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reject the amendment by deciding the merits of the elaborated defence under Article 227.
Held
- The original written statement already pleaded joint-family property and an oral family arrangement. The amendment elaborated that defence rather than withdrawing an admission, and would not prejudice the plaintiff. (¶ 10–11)
- Permission to amend does not depend on whether the proposed case will ultimately succeed. Article 227 supervision ensures that the lower court acts within jurisdiction; it is not an appellate reassessment of evidence or merits. The trial court’s considered amendment order warranted no interference here. (¶ 11)
- The alternative objection that the respondent had pursued Article 227 after seeking review below was left undecided because the merits disposed of the appeal. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court judgment set aside and trial court order permitting amendment of the written statement affirmed.