As a matter of practice, Courts allow additional written statement to be filed after the plaint is amended. Such practice is recognised by the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh and others v. Raj Kumar Aneja and others (AIR 2002 SC 1003), wherein it was held that when one of the parties has been permitted to amend his pleading, an opportunity has to be given to the opposite party to amend his pleading.
The opposite party shall also have to make an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC which, of course, would ordinarily and liberally be allowed. Such amendments are known as a consequential amendments. The phrase “consequential amendment” finds mention in the decision of Apex Court in Bikram Singh and others v. Ram Baboo and others, AIR 1981 SC 2036. The expression is judicially recognized.
While granting leave to amend a pleading by way of consequential amendment the Court shall see that the plea sought to be introduced is by way of an answer to the plea previously permitted to be incorporated by way of amendment by the opposite party. A new plea cannot be permitted to be added in the garb of a consequential amendment, though it can be applied by way of an independent or primary amendment.
Some of the High Courts permit, as matter of practice, an additional pleading, by way of response to the amendment made in the pleadings by opposite party, being filed with the leave of the Court. Where it is permissible to do so, care has to be taken to see that the additional pleading is confined to an answer to the amendment made by the opposite party and is not misused for the purpose of setting up altogether new pleas springing a surprise on the opposite party and the Court.
A reference to Order VI Rule 7 of the CPC is apposite which provides that no pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same.