Thenuwarp vs Simo Nona and Others – sllr 2005 volume 2 page 309

In the case between the 1st to 3rd plaintiff-respondents and the defendant-appellant (widow of the 1st plaintiff’s son), the court addressed whether the defendant-appellant could amend her answer to include allegations of fraud and a claim based on a dowry promise, despite these matters having been known prior to the original answer’s filing. It was held that amendments founded on pre-existing facts in the knowledge of the applicant at the time of the original pleading are not permissible, reaffirming the principle that amendments under section 93(2) of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be made to introduce facts already known but previously omitted. This decision relied on authorities such as Audiappu vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Senanayake vs. Anthoniusze, emphasizing that legal strategy c