SAR TRANSPORT SYSTEMS PVT LTD vs M/S ROSS INTERNATIONAL

Judgment text excerpt

$~102 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21st July, 2025 + CM(M) 1283/2025 & CM APPL. 42938-42940/2025 SAR TRANSPORT SYSTEMS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Karanjot Singh Mainee, Mr. Sahil Chopra and Mr. Tarun Garg, Advocates. versus M/S ROSS INTERNATIONAL .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a suit which is commercial in nature. 2. When the case was at the stage of framing issues and case management hearing, defendant moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement. 3. The prime reason given in such application was that the previous counsel had not clarified certain aspects and, therefore, the amendment was required. It was also claimed that by virtue of the abovesaid application, the defendant was not withdrawing any admission as such and was not even altering the nature of the defence, already set up by it. 4. The learned Trial Court has, however, declined to allow such amendment and such order dated 03.06.2025 is under challenge. 5. Admittedly, the Court should be, generally, liberal in approach and if Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1283/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:23.07.2025 17:20:59 proposed amendment seems necessary to decide real disputes and controversy between the parties, it can be allowed even if there is delay in moving such application. In LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, it has been observed that where amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the request for amendment should be allowed. It also lays down that where amendment is predicated on facts which are alread