2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2234 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Before

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh

CR No. 8344 of 2016

Mahender Singh & Anr.

v.

Reshma Devi & Ors.

Decided on 28/07/2017

For the Petitioners:         Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate

For the Respondent:        Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate

Amendment of Written StatementThe Court is not obligated to go into the correctness or falsity of the case of the parties at this stage.

  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6 R.17–Amendment of Written Statement-The
    amendment of written statement stands on different pedestal, than the
    amendment of plaintDefendant is entitled to take even inconsistent plea while
    amending the written statement.
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6 R.17–Amendment of Written Statement-The
    Court is not obligated to go into the correctness or falsity of the case of the parties
    at this stage-It is mandatory on the Court to allow all amendments which are
    necessary for real determination of the issue between the parties-Rule of
    amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and it has
    to be exercised in larger interest of doing complete justice between the parties-­
    All bona fide amendments which are necessary for determining the real issue
    between the parties should be allowed.

2    S. Malla Reddy v M/s Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society, 2013(3) Law Herald (SC) 2297. (Para 5) 3.   Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanswamy & Sons, 2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 3662. (Para 5) 4    Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors., 2007(2) Law Herald (SC) 1281. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: (Oral) – Petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order dated 21.11.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh, vide which application filed by the defendants for amendment of the written statement was declined.

  1. Defendants have sought for amendment of the written statement, thereby, adding para Nos.7
    and 8 in the written statement. The aforesaid amendment was sought on the ground that there
    was a decision of the Court dated 24.05.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.509 of 2012 titled
    Reshma Devi Vs. Mahender Singh and others between the parties, which was filed prior to the
    institution of the present suit. On the aforesaid premise, the amendment was sought.
  2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 12.12.2016, following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that factum of decision rendered in earlier suit is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the written statement. Decision of the earlier suit came to be passed after filing of the present suit. The amendment of written statement is to be liberally construed and parameters of amendment of written statement are altogether different than the one required for amendment of the plaint. Notice of motion for 24.01.2017.

Proceedings may go on, however, final order may not be passed.” 4.1 have considered the arguments of both the sides.

  1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has opposed the revision petition on the ground that
    after commencement of the trial, the amendment cannot be allowed. The plaintiff was in the
    knowledge of the document, which was sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in
    the written statement. Learned counsel placed reliance upon M/s Modi Spinning and
    Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. M/s Ladha Ram and Co., 1977 AIR (SC) 680, S.
    Malla Reddy Vs. M/s Future Builders Co-operative Housing Society and others,
    /2013(3)
    Law Herald (SC) 2297/: 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 957
    and Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs.
    Narayanswamy & Sons and others,
    /2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 3662J: 2010(1) RCR (Civil)
    27 and contended that a new case cannot be set up by the defendants under the garb of
    amendment and in view of conduct of the defendants, the amendment cannot be allowed at
    such a belated stage, particularly when the trial had already commenced.
  2. It is mandatory on the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for real
    determination of the issue between the parties. The Court is not obligated to go into the
    correctness or falsity of the case of the parties at this stage. Rule of amendment is essentially
    a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and it has to be exercised in larger interest of
    doing complete justice between the parties. All bona fide amendments which are necessary for
    determining the real issue between the parties should be allowed. First part of Rule 17 CPC
    gives discretion to the Court, but second part is imperative and enjoins the Court to allow all
    necessary amendments.
  3. In Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors., /2007(2) Law Herald
    (SC) 1281J 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 830, the Hon’ble Apex Court summed up the criteria for
    allowing or disallowing the amendment of written statement. Para Nos.20 and 23 of the
    aforesaid judgment are being reproduced hereasunder:-

“20. It is equally well settled principle that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable.

  1. Keeping these principles in mind, namely, that in a case of amendment of a written statement the Courts would be more liberal in allowing than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter and addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can a/so be allowed, we may now proceed to consider whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement.”
  2. The amendment of written statement stands on different pedestal, than the amendment of
    Defendant is entitled to take even inconsistent plea while amending the written
    statement.
  3. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he would be
    satisfied if the amended written statement is simply allowed to be placed on record without
    allowing the petitioners to lead any further evidence on record.

 

  1. Keeping in view the stage of the trial of the case, I am of the opinion that the prayer is fair
    enough to be accepted, however subject to cost of Rs.20,000/- payable to respondent No.1.
    Payment of cost shall be the condition precedent for granting such indulgence by the trial
    Court in the aforesaid context.
  2. Disposed of.