Pal Singh Vs. Ranjit Singh - Court Judgment

M.M. Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioner for amendment of the written statement preferred under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code').

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent field Civil Suit No. 127 dated 20.5.1997 for possession of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.11.1996. After completion of pleadings and framing of issues the plaintiff-respondent proceeded with his evidence and concluded the same. At the stage when the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant-petitioner an application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code was filed. The plaintiff-respondent contested the application and the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 7.5.2005. The operative part of the order passed by the trial Court reads as under:-

After hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the pleadings of the parties very carefully. A perusal of the file shows that written statement was field by the defendant in the Court on 8.1.1997 and thereafter case remained pending. Plaintiff had already closed his evidence, at the time when present application was moved on behalf of the defendant and the case was fixed up for defendant's evidence. Even if we admit the plea taken by the defendant that due to depression, he could not rely upon these documents, at the time of filing the written statement but there should have been limit to the depression suffered by the defendant. Plaintiff Ranjit Singh has appeared into witness box for the purpose of his cross-examination on 25.11.2004 but none of these two documents were put to the plaintiff by the defendant. These two documents have come into picture all of a sudden when the case was fixed up for defendant's evidence. At this stage, when the original of these documents are not even in possession of the defendant and no plausible explanation has been given by defendant for not relying upon these documents at the earlier stage, as such, finding no merit in the present application, the same is hereby dismissed and the case sands adjourned to 7.6.2005 for evidence of the defendant at own responsibility.

3. Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that two documents are necessary to be placed on record by way of amendment of the written statement which has come to the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner subsequently and those documents could not be pleaded by him on account of mental depression. Those two documents are dated 20.12.1995 and 8.5.1996 which indicate that the agreement to sell was entered into by the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the same land. The defendant-petitioner wishes to substantiate his 'stand that the agreement to sell dated 11.11.1996 in respect of which specific performance of the agreement to sell has been sought is merely a money transaction which has even happened before and could be proved by those two documents.

4. Mr. P.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that the amendment if allowed would result into de-novo trial and it would unnecessarily delay the conclusion of the trial. He has also submitted that there is no error of jurisdiction or impropriety committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 7.5.2005. Learned Counsel has then pointed out that even original of the documents dated 20.12.1995 and 8.5.1996 were not in possession of the defendant-petitioner and no explanation was tendered by him as to why these documents were not produced at the earlier stage.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order. I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is well settled that amendment in respect of the written statement is granted more liberally than in the plaint. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Narayana Pilled v. Parameswaran Pillai and Anr. : AIR2000SC614 . It is also well settled that where the purpose of proposed amendment is to elaborate the defence and take additional plea in support of the case, then ordinarily such an application should not be dismissed. in this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. : AIR2001SC3295 .

6. In the present case, defendant-petitioner has sought to amend the written statement by pleading that there are series of agreements to sell which have been entered into by the plaintiff-respondent with the defendant-petitioner showing that the agreement to sell dated 11.11.1996 in respect of which specific performance has been sought is merely a money transaction and the party never intended the suit land, to be sold, Such a plea even if taken at a belated stated would be permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of aforementioned judgments. Therefore, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the plaintiff-respondent if the amendment is allowed at this stage. Moreover, the amendment sought would advance the administration of justice which is aimed at fathom the truth. Therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed.

7. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The defendant-petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the plaintiff-respondent. The trial Court ensure payment of costs before accepting amendments. It is needless to observe that the trial Court shall grant sufficient opportunity to the party to adduce evidence in the wake of the amendment.