ORDER
R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. 'The rules and the principles of case law have never been treated as final truths, but as working hypotheses, continually retested in great laboratories of the law, the Courts of justice. Every new case is an experiment; and if the expected rule which seems applicable yields a result which is felt to be unjust, the rule is reconsidered' said Cordozo (The Nature of The Judicial Process,p.23). It is this philosophical approach to rule of law which has persuaded two learned single judges of this Court seeking resolution of conflict in judicial opinion on a point of frequent recurrence before the courts of law. This is how three matters are before the Full Bench.
2. SAO 276/79 is an appeal preferred by a landlord who has lost his eviction petition from the Court of the Rent Controller and also from Rent Control Tribunal in appeal. One of the grounds of eviction pleaded by the landlord was that the defendant had constructed a house at Golf Links New Delhi. In the petition the house was described as '61 Golf Links.' Later on the landlord learnt that the number of the house constructed by the tenant was '62, Golf Links' and not '61, Golf Links.' He sought for an amendment of the eviction petition by substituting '62' in place of '61' which was allowed. Consequent to the petition having been amended, the tenant filed a new written statement to the amended petition. In the new written statement the tenant took a somersault over his earlier written statement and pleaded such facts as were at substantial- if not total- variance with the written statement as originally filed.
2.1 When the appeal came up for hearing before Usha Mehra, J, she noticed a conflict of judicial opinion, so far as Delhi High Court is concerned, on the question whether a defendant can have the right or liberty of filing an entirely new written statement in response to a limited amendment allowed in the petition/plaint. She, vide order dated 7.2.97, directed the matter to be referred to a Division Bench.
2.2 The Division Bench before which the reference came up for hearing on 24.2.98 formed an opinion that one of the decisions, namely Girdhari Lal v. Krishan Dutt, being a decision by a Division Bench of Punjab High Court, which is the predecessor High Court of Delhi High Court, the Division Bench view was binding on a later Division Bench and hence the question deserved appropriately to be dealt with by a Full Bench. Accordingly a Full Bench has been constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
3. In suit No. 2092/89 also a similar question arose before Usha Mehra, J who vide order dated 5.8.94 directed the matter to be placed before a larger bench.
3.1 The plaintiff had sought amendment in his plaint to a limited extent amending the cause title of the suit. According to him there was a mis description in the cause title part. Because of some confusion, instead of suing as a proprietor of a sole proprietary firm the plaintiff had filed the suit in the name of a firm suing through its partners. The prayer for amendment was allowed. Then arose the question whether a new written statement was permissible to be filed by the defendant or merely an additional pleading by the defendant by way of reply limited to the amendment allowed in the plaint was called for and could be allowed.
4. In suit No. 3139/91, fresh paras 5A,5B, 5C, 8A, 8B, 10A,17A were permitted to be added in the plaint by way of amendment. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement to the amended plaint wherein he raised pleas not limited to the amendment allowed. The question arose whether he could raise such pleadings which went much beyond the reply to the pleas introduced by way of amendment in the plaint. K.S. Gupta, J vide order dated 17.7.98 having noticed the pendency of reference before the Division Bench, directed this suit also to be clubbed with the reference which has been allowed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
5. We are, thereforee, called upon to examine the nature and extent of the right of a defendant to amend his pleadings or to file additional or new pleadings consequent upon the plaint having been permitted to be amended by the Court. Whether the defendant can file new pleadings as of right Whether the defendant can file such new or additional pleadings as may be at variance - total or partial with his original pleadings Whether court has jurisdiction to regulate the right of the opposite party to amend its pleadings or file new or additional pleadings, and if so, the extent and manner of exercise of such power
6. First, we would notice and study the cleavage of judicial opinion which has persuaded the learned Single Judges of this Court judicially soliciting this reference.
7. One terrain of thought is led by Division Bench decision of Punjab High Court in Girdhari Lal v. Krishan Dutt, . The Division Bench has held :
'There is no rule of law, statutory or otherwise, which restricts or limits the defendant when he is called upon to file a written statement to an amended plaint, to contest the plaintiff's claim, to any particular pleas. The general scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure and the policy underlying the law of pleadings does not suggest that the new written statement should be confined and restricted to the amended portion of the plaint and should not contain any other additional plea. The question does not appear, strictly speaking to be one of amendment of the first written statement which could only be effected with the permission of the court; it really pertains more to the right of the defendant to contest the suit as made out in the amended plaint read as a whole.
The law relating to pleadings should not be construed and applied with undue rigidity and strictness if no prejudice or embarrassment towards fair trial of the suit is caused. It would of course be open to the Court to consider whether or not being an after thought the pleas in question lacked merit, but the right of the defendant to raise the new pleas could hardly be negatived by reference to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 only.'
No precedent on this point has been referred by the Division Bench.
7.1 I.D. Dua, J., who spoke for the DB in Girdhari Lal's case (supra), sitting singly made a little departure from the view taken by him in the Division Bench and so expressed himself in New Bank of India Ltd v. Smt Raj Rani, :
'The crucial test, in deciding whether the fresh written statement should be confined to the amended portion of the plaint only, is what is the nature of the order passed by the court when permitting a fresh plaint to be filed. If at that time the court does not intend to restrict a fresh plea to be raised merely as supplementary to the trial already held and if it permits a plaint to be filed so that the entire trial could begin from the stage of pleadings, then it is certainly open to the defendant to put in a fresh written statement untrammelled by his pleas in the earlier written statement. It would undoubtedly be for the court to consider how far to believe the truth of the plea in the amended written statement in face of the earlier pleading and unless cogent and convincing grounds are shown for going back on the earlier pleas, the court would in all probability rule out the subsequent plea as an afterthought.
thereforee, when the court by an unqualified order allows defendant to file a fresh written statement, the written statement when filed must be allowed to remain on the record and should not be ignored merely as a matter of law on the ground of being an inconsistent plea with the plea in the earlier written statement. The statement cannot be confined to amended portion of the plaint and it is also not controlled by provisions O.6 Rule 7.'
7.2 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana has continued to take the same view in Jagdish Parshad v. Dhenshi Ram, 1977 (79) PLR 670, wherein no precedent not even of Punjab High Court is referred and in Naresh Kumar vs. Om Parkash 1989 (2) RLR 603. Both are single bench decisions.
7.3. Rajasthan High Court (Single Bench) has followed Punjab view in Ramchandra v. Mahendra Singh .
7.4. In Mehta Davinder Singh v. Harnam Singh 1976 R L.R. 39, F.S. Gill, J. has permitted a new written statement by the defendant to be filed since the plaint was amended at a preliminary stage before framing of issues. The short note does not set out any detailed facts or reasoning for the view taken.
7.5 Mittar Sain v. Ram Dass, 1978 (80) PLR 145, is also a decision by Punjab High Court wherein S.C. Mittal, J.has referred to New Bank of India Ltd's case only and held that the appellate court having permitted a clerical error to be amended in the plaint, the defendant could not be allowed to file amended written statement without any restrictions; the interests of justice required the amendment in the written statement to be confined to the amendment made in the plaint.
8. Now we notice the opposite view. First, we would take up the view of Delhi High Court.
8.1 In Ruksana Sultana v. Mahinder Kaur, 1983 R L.R. 776 J.D.Jain, J. has chosen to follow Himachal and Gujrat view refusing to subscribe to the Punjab view in Girdhari Lal's case and held :
'The defendant when required to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint does not get an unfettered right to take up any pleas he chooses and a departure in the subsequent pleadings cannot be permitted in violation of the prohibition contained in Order VI, r.17. However, I find it difficult to go further and subscribe to to the view that the additional written statement to be filed to the amended plaint must confine to the amendments made in the plaint i.e. the defendant can have his say only with respect to the matter introduced by amendment and no further. In my view, there is no warrant for such a conclusion having regard to the plain language or Order VII, r.6 which simply prohibits a party from raising any new ground of claim or making any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party in his subsequent pleadings. It nowhere says that a party called upon to file additional written statement must confine its answer to the amended portion of the opponent's pleadings. hence, a defense will be entitled to take up any new plea and even aver new facts in his additional written statement so long as they do not constitute a new ground of claim or are not incompatible with his earlier pleadings and there is no infraction of rule 17, Order VI. For instance, he may bring forth additional facts to explain or amplify the stand already taken in the original written statement. The Court will, of course ignore the additional written statement if it contains a new ground of claim or allegation of fact which is inconsistent with his previous pleadings'
8.2 So is the view taken by Sultan Singh, J. in Jaimal Singh v. Chanan Devi, 1985 (1) R C.R.
8.3 The decisions by the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Sawan Singh v. Radha Krishan, and Judicial Commissioner's Court of Himachal Pradesh in Dittu Ram v. Amar Chand are in line with the view taken by Delhi High Court. Punjab view has been expressly dissented from. It has been held that additional pleading by the defendant must remain confined to the amendment allowed in the plaint. No plea inconsistent with the plea raised in the original written statement can be allowed to be taken by way of additional pleading so filed.
8.4 So is the view taken by Gujrat High Court in Thakkar Babulal Dayashanker v. Mehta Natwarlal Kaluram, : AIR1978Guj94 , which has chosen to follow H.P.view and dissented from the Punjab view.
8.5 Ramyadhisingh v. Shahjada Singh (1970) 18 BJLR 987 takes the same view.
9. Having so noticed the available decided cases, we now proceed to notice the relevant statutory provisions and certain basic principles of law relating to pleadings. We extract and reproduce the following from the CPC.
General Power to amend S.153. The Court may at any time and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding.
O.VI, Rule 7.
Departure
7. 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.
O.VI, Rule 17.
Amendment of pleadings
17. 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.
O.8 Rule 9.
Subsequent Pleadings
9.No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defense to a setoff [ or counter-claim] shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same.
10. Section 153 of the CPC confers on the Court a general power to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit and states that 'all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding.' The general power under this Section has sometimes been applied to the amendment of pleadings which are also proceedings in a suit but there being a special rule ( O.VI r.17) relating to pleadings, the general must yield to the special rule which should normally be invoked for that purpose. Besides, Section 153 speaks of the court making the amendment suo motu and can thereforee be applied at best only to verbal slips or defects; the first part of O.VI,r.17 enable alterations in the structure of a pleading which can be made only by a party on application made under O.VI, r.17. While a slip or error can be corrected by the court under Section 153 at any time, e.g., even after judgment, a pleading can be amended under O.VI, r.17 only during the pendency of the proceeding. Section 153 will of course be required for correcting errors in proceedings in suits other than pleadings, e.g. a memorandum of appeal, a summons. In the case of original petitions, the power to amend Order O.VI, r.17 is attracted by force of Section 141 CPC. (Pleadings, by Stone & Iyer, Second Edn, p.140 ).
11. From a perusal of the several provisions of the CPC referred to hereinabove the position which emerges is as follows. Order VI which applies to pleadings generally and would include plaint or written statement both, has rule 7 which restrains any party from taking in the pleadings a stand which may be inconsistent with the previous pleadings of that party. The only exception is by way of amendment. Order VI, rule 17 which confers jurisdiction on the court to permit any alteration or amendment in the pleadings implies the existence of a negative rule: no party can alter or amend his pleading-plaint or written statement except by the leave of the court and in such a manner and on such terms as may be just in the opinion of the court. Rule 9 of Order 8 restrains any pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant being filed except by the leave of the court and again upon such terms as the court thinks fit. The exceptions are two: (i) a pleading filed by way of defense to set off or counter-claim, and (ii) a written statement or additional written statement required to be filed by the court.
11.1 Civil law does not totally rule out inconsistent sets of material facts being pleaded in the alternative and claiming relief there under be it a plaintiff or a defendant. Such inconsistent pleas should be distinct and separate and not mutually destructive of each other. This right of a party is subject to power of the court to strike out the pleadings if they may tend to prejudice or embarrass a fair trial. However a party would be better advised to abandon one of the two inconsistent pleas before going to the trial because contradictory inconsistent pleas may lead to contradictory oral testimony being adduced which will have a mutually destructive effect associated with the peril of court's confidence being denied to both. Take the case of a person in possession pleading license and adverse possession in the alternative in an effort to protect his possession.
11.2 In a very limited category of cases an amendment proposing to withdraw an admission and plead an inconsistent case may be allowed S.31 Evidence Act provides -admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they operate as estoppels. Law as to amendment of pleadings withdrawing admissions and dealing with principles governing such prayers was dealt with by this Court in at least two cases, namely Misha Vadera v. Ravi Kumar 1996 AD(Delhi)113 and Rupa Sethi v. Sanjay Yadav : 66(1997)DLT103 which may be usefully referred.
12. We may also take note of the English practice where an amended statement of claim is served on a defendant who has already served a defense. The defendant may amend his defense. An omission to serve an amended pleading in answer to a pleading amended without leave enables the respondent to rely on the pleading which he has already served in answer to such new matter as may be contained in the amended pleading. ( See Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edn, Vol 36, para 67 at page 51).
13. Reference may be had to Bullen & Leake on PRECEDENTS OF PLEADINGS, 12th Edn. If a party served with a pleading which is subsequently amended does not amend his own pleading he may rely on the rule of implied joinder of issue 'but if he does amend his own pleading, he is not entitled to introduce any amendment that he choses but only to make such amendments as are consequential upon the amendment made by the opposite party' (at page 126). 'In all cases except where amendment is allowed with leave, the party seeking or requiring the amendment of any pleading must apply to the court for leave or order to amend. The proposed amendment should be specified either by stating them, in short, in the body of the summons, notice or other application or by referring to them therein.' 'In practice leave to amend is given only when and to the extent that the proposed amendments have been properly and exactly formulated and in such a case the order giving leave to amend binds the party making the amendment and he cannot amend generally.' ( at pages 135-136).
14. It will be useful to understand the actual mechanism or the practice recognised by the courts in England and in India for permitting an amendment even in the plaint for it will be of some assistance in finding out an answer to the questions posed by the reference.
15. English practice as stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, (Fourth Edn, vol 36,para 63 at pp 48-49) is as under :
'Mode of amendment. A pleading may be amended by written alterations in a copy of the document which has been served, and by additions on paper to be interleaved with it if necessary. However, where the amendments are so numerous or of such nature or length that to make written alterations of the document so as to give effect to them would make it difficult or inconvenient to read, a fresh document must be prepared incorporating the amendments. If such extensive amendment is required to a writ it must be reissued. An amended writ or pleading must be indorsed with a statement that it has been amended, specifying the date on which it was amended, the name of the judge, master or registrar by whom any order authorising the amendment was made and the date of the order; or if no such order was made the number of the rule in pursuance of which the amendment was made. The practice is to indicate any amendment in a different ink or type from the original, and the colour of the first amendment is usually red.'
16. Stone and Iyer so state the practice/mode of making amendment in PLEADINGS ( supra, p.165):-
'In England it often happens that before the case comes into court and while still the Master is exercising the powers conferred by a Summons for Directions counsel seek leave to amend not once but several times. The practice is to amend first in red and make later amendments in different coloured inks. A practice which we think might, with advantage, be followed would be to place before the court, as one places before a Master in England, the proposed amendments. These may or may not be allowed as proposed, or may be altered before leave is given. Leave having been given, a new plaint or written statement showing the old pleading and with the amendments written or typed in might then be prepared and taken on the file of the court. In cases where the addition is substantial it may be necessary to deliver a copy of the pleading as amended. If old matter is scored out, it must be done in such a manner as to show the original pleading and the alteration. Under O.VI, r.17 C.P.C., a party has apparently to amend his pleading while it is in Court. under the old Code it was returned to him for amendment. The Court may even now have power to return it if it is necessary to do so. Where leave to amend is asked for, the actual amendment must be formulated before leave is given. If it is proposed to apply for amendment, it is desirable to inform the other side so that there can be no question of surprise and no adjournment may be necessary on allowing the amendment. Pursuant to the leave granted the proceedings should be amended before the judgment is pronounced.'
17. Any party whether it be the plaintiff or the defendant proposing to make an amendment in his pleading must make an appropriate application setting out specifically (i) the additional pleading sought to be added, (ii) the pleading sought to be deleted or altered, so that the court may clearly form an opinion as to the nature and extent of the proposed amendment and its legal implications for the purpose of exercising its discretionary jurisdiction of permitting or denying the prayer for amendment. Once an amendment is allowed, if the amendment be minor, negligible or clerical merely, such amendment may be incorporated in the original pleading by using red ink and certified by the court master or the judge after being initialled and dated by the party making the same. If the amendment be substantial in character then an amended pleading should be filed setting out all the contents of the original pleading; there from scoring out by drawing a single line across such portions as have been deleted by the leave of the court by using a red ink pen; and setting out the portions allowed to be added by the court either by typing out in red ink or by highlighting the same in red or yellow. The utility of this practice is that while appreciating the case of a party, the court can know what was the case originally pleaded by the party and what was the case pleaded by way of amendment. At times this would be of immense utility to the Judge adjudicating upon the credibility of the case set out by the party going at the trial.
18. The next question which arises is whether the defendant can file a fresh written statement in lieu of or in addition to the written statement already filed in the event of the plaint having been allowed to be amended. In our opinion, the applicability of Order VI, r.17 is attracted even at this stage. In Bikram Singh v. Ram Baboo, : AIR1981SC2036 , their Lordships have employed the phrase 'consequential amendment' for denoting such amendments. A prayer for amendment in the written statement by the defendant occasioned by the plaintiff having amended his plaint is a prayer for consequential amendment. In our opinion, consequent upon the plaint having been allowed to be amended the defendant should also be allowed the liberty of moving an application under Order VI, rule 17 of the C.P.C. setting out such additions, alterations and deletions as he proposes to make in the written statement as was originally filed.
18.1 The Court shall consider the application. Such pleas as are in reply to the pleas introduced in the plaint by amendment, would be allowed being consequential amendments. The court would also apply its mind to the fact if the defendant is taking a plea inconsistent with the pleas already taken but as an alternative plea then whether it should be allowed to be incorporated in the written statement by way of amendment. If the plea sought to be raised by the defendant is one which the defendant would have been at liberty or within his rights to raise in the written statement as originally filed if the plaint as amended would have been the one as originally filed then the court may permit the amendment being incorporated in the written statement. The leave granted by the court shall fall within the scope of the defendant's right to traverse. The application of judicial mind by the Court at this stage would avoid several complications which may arise at a later stage. The question of filing an additional written statement in lieu of or in addition to the written statement originally filed would not then arise.
18.2 It is in a very limited category of cases where in view of substantial or drastic amendments having been permitted to be incorporated in the plaint, probably the Court may be inclined either to require or to grant leave to the defendant to file an additional written statement in lieu of or in addition to the written statement already filed if in the opinion of the Court that would avoid prolixity and be in interest of justice. Still such subsequent pleading though permitted to be filed or required to be filed, shall be subject to the provisions of Order VI, rule 7 CPC. No fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings may be pleaded in such additional written statement and if pleaded the court may exercise its jurisdiction to strike off such pleadings.
18.3 Insistence on leave being sought from the court for incorporating consequential amendment would enable only one set of pleadings being available on record. That would avoid confusion and delay at the trial.
19. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the Punjab and Rajasthan view. The observation that there is no rule of law- statutory or otherwise-restricting or limiting to any particular pleas the defendant filing a written statement to an amended plaint, does not take note of the embargo contained in Order 6 Rule 7 and Order 8 Rule 9. Secondly, the view, if followed, would result into confusion and consequent delay at the trial. A few questions arise but remain unanswered by the Punjab view. If pleadings subsequently filed contain pleas inconsistent with the earlier pleadings, then which of the two pleadings would the Court follow Whether the subsequent pleading would be in lieu of or in supersession of the earlier pleading or would be read in addition thereto? By reference to which pleadings the court would frame the issues and lay down the scope of trial How the rule of variance between the pleadings and proof would be applied to at the stage of trial and while deciding the case That is why, not the right of the defendant to file new pleadings, but the power of the Court to regulate the pleadings,should govern the practice and procedure.
20. None of the decided cases deals with a very important aspect of the procedure. The plaintiff under the Code of Civil Procedure cannot amend the plaint as of right. He must take the leave of the Court.If that be so, an amendment having been allowed, the power has to be left in the hands of the court to decide whether an opportunity or leave for consequential amendment in the written statement would meet the ends of justice or a subsequent additional pleading by the defendant is warranted and hence should be allowed. Ordinarily a plea allowed to be raised in the plaint by way of amendment should be left to be answered by a plea to be raised in the written statement by way of consequential amendment subject to leave of the court. While granting such leave in the light of the averment made in the application seeking such leave, the court would apply its mind whether the pleas raised now or sought to be raised by way of amendment are in lieu of the pleas raised earlier or are in addition thereto.The court would examine whether such pleas sought to be raised by way of amendment in the written statement are in any way inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the defendant. While considering an application for amendment, the court would have jurisdiction to permit an amendment inconsistent with the original pleadings though it will be a matter of discretion to permit or not to permit which discretion will be exercised judicially. Once the court grants leave to amend written statement on an application made to it for the purpose, the amendment so allowed would be incorporated in the written statement as originally filed. A consolidated but only one written statement would come into existence. This would be convenient and avoid confusion at the trial. As is borne out from the phraseology employed by Rule 9 of Order 8, the rule is not to permit any pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant. Jurisdiction to permit a subsequent pleading is there but that is by way of exception and exercisable subject to the leave of the Court being asked for which may be allowed upon such terms as the court thinks fit. An additional pleading cannot be inconsistent with the previous pleading of the party filing the same.
21. We find ourselves in agreement with the view as expressed by J.D. Jain, J. in Ruksana Sultana's case (subject to a rider as stated soon hereinafter) and Sultan Singh, J. in Jaimal Singh's case because it is reasonable, logical, more practical and is consistent with the spirit of the law as evidenced by rules 7 and 17 of Order VI, and rule 9 of Order 8. However, on the dictum of J.D. Jain, J. 'reproduced in para 8.1 above we would like to add a rider. A distinction has to be drawn between a 'consequential amendment' and an 'original amendment' by a defendant. An amendment sought for by defendant which is consequent to an amendment made in plaint would ordinarily be allowed by court may be in routine - for such procedure would be consistent with rules of justice and fair play and also protected by defendant's right to traverse. An amendment sought for by defendant, if not consequential merely, shall be dealt with by the Court as the defendant's own prayer for amendment in his own pleading.
22. To sum up, we are of the opinion that:-
(i) merely because an amendment has been allowed in the plaint, the defendant does not get a right and certainly not an unbridled right to file a new written statement;
(ii) Any additional pleading cannot be at variance or inconsistent with the original pleading;
(iii) A pleading inconsistent with or in departure from an original pleading can be allowed only by way of amendment subject to the leave being granted by the Court under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
(iv) Order 6 rule 17 CPC applies to amendment in the plaint and the written statement-both. It applies to amendment sought for by one party and also to consequential amendments in the pleadings sought for by the opposite party. Any amendment - whether original or consequential, shall be only by the leave of the Court.
23. The Court has jurisdiction to regulate the right of the opposite party to amend his pleadings or file a new or additional pleading. The following principles and procedural steps deducible from English and Indian practice should regulate the procedure:-
(i) Once a plaint has been amended consequent upon leave having been allowed by the Court, the defendant may also ask for leave to amend the written statement by way of consequential amendment. Ordinarily this should be the practice to be followed by the Courts permitting amendment in the pleadings.
(ii) It is only in exceptional case and not by way of rule that the Court may exercise its discretion requiring or granting the leave to file an additional pleading consequential upon an amendment having been allowed to the opposite party.
(iii) An amendment having been allowed, if the amendment be minor, negligible or clerical merely such amendment may be incorporated in the original pleading by using red ink and certified by the Court Master or the Judge after being initialled and dated by the party making the same. If the amendment be substantial in character then an amended pleading should be filed setting out all the contents of the original pleading, there from scoring out by drawing a single line across such portions as have been deleted under the order of the Court by using red ink pen and setting out portions allowed to be added by the Court by using red ink, or highlighting the same in red or yellow.
24. We would suggest suitable rules being framed and incorporated in the High Court Rules and Orders governing such procedural aspects.
25. For the foregoing reasons we express our respectful dissent with the view taken by the High Court of Punjab in the case of Girdhari Lal ( supra), New Bank of India Ltd. (supra), Jagdish Parshad (supra) and Naresh Kumar (supra) and by the High Court of Rajasthan in Ramchandra (supra).
26. The reference stands answered accordingly. Let a copy of this order be placed on the record of each of the three cases placed before the Full Bench. Each case would be listed before the concerning bench for directions on 8-12-1998.