Judgment:
M.M.S. Bedi, J.
1. This order will dispose of the instant revision petition filed by the defendant-petitioners against order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the trial court dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the defendants for amendment of the written statement claiming that the defendant-petitioners had engaged a counsel, who had taken their signatures on some blank papers for the purpose of preparation of written statement and reply to the application. He did not draft the written statement as per the defence of the defendant- petitioners and had not read over the contents of the same before filing it in the court. It was only on 17.4.2008 that the defendant- petitioners came to know about a foul play, being played against them by their counsel in connivance with the plaintiff, when the plaintiff started proclaiming that he will get decreed the suit in his favour. It is claimed by the defendant-petitioners that after engaging another counsel and inspecting the file, it was revealed that a wrong admission had been made in the written statement. Vide the impugned order dated 19.9.2008 the application for amendment has been declined.
2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has vehemently contended that the petitioners cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission made in the written statement. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Heera Lal v. Kalyan Mal and Ors. : A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 618, wherein it was observed that by amendment, admission cannot be allowed to be withdrawn if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of plaintiff and which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. He has also relied upon Smt. Vidya Wanti v. Gopi Chand and Ors. (1991)121 PLR 546, to contend that when the defendants have admitted the claim of the plaintiffs in categorical terms and have also made statements, which were duly signed by them, they cannot be permitted to withdraw unless the same is shown to be erroneously or patently wrong. He has further relied upon Gurdial Singh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar Aneja and Ors. : (2002)2 Supreme Court Cases 445, to contend that the application for amendment must set out exactly what is proposed to be omitted from, or substituted in or altered or added to the original pleadings, otherwise the court cannot exercise its power and discretion of permitting amendment effectively.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff- respondents had, in this case, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is absolute owner and in possession of the suit property, on which a house has been constructed. Besides that he had sought a declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 20.7.1998 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 4 and sale deed dated 18.1.2005 executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 5 are null and void being illegal transactions as these were forged and fabricated. The plaintiff-respondents have also sought a declaration pertaining to Will dated 26.1.1981, alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 6, 7 and 8. There also appears to be a dispute regarding another Will dated 14.9.1990 as per the pleading of the plaintiff-respondents. The plaintiff had also sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing defendants 3 and 5 for removing the construction made on a particular portion of the suit property. By way of amendment, no doubt the defendant- petitioners want to withdraw some admissions regarding the registered documents. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, read as follows:
17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
4. The claim of the plaintiff-respondents is that on the basis of admissions made in the written statement, a right has accrued to them to get a decree in their favour but on the other hand a perusal of the application, moved under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC indicates that the defendant- petitioners claims that a fraud has been played upon them. In case the said fraud has been detected at the very initial stage of the trial, the defendants cannot be deprived of an opportunity to contest the case on merits. Learned Counsel for plaintiff- respondents has contended that there has been a compromise between the plaintiff and defendants and on the basis of that compromise, the admission had been made by the defendants. I have also taken into consideration the said contention but in view of the stage of the suit i.e. where the pleadings are being completed and issues have not even been framed, it seems that it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties, by permitting the defendants to amend the written statement. The trial does not seem to have commenced as yet. The rules are hand maiden of justice. In case the defendants, by way of amendment, at initial stage, seek to withdraw an admission by explaining the circumstances as to how the admissions were made in the pleadings, I do not find any reason not to permit the amendment of the written statement. The inconvenience caused to the plaintiff- petitioners can be compensated by costs.
5. In view of the above circumstances, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 19.9.2008 is hereby set aside, the application of the defendants for amendment is allowed and they are permitted to amend the written statement subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs, to be paid to the plaintiff on the next date of hearing before the trial court at the time of filing the amended written statement.