Revision maintaining that trial court correctly allowed defendant to amend her written statement to add defences, relying on Supreme Court precedent that courts are liberal in permitting such amendments to bring the controversy into focus.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R. No. 3876 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 3876 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: Sept 23rd , 2011.
Karan Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
Jodh Singh and otherss ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 7.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Karan Singh has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.5.2010 (Annexure P/13) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala City, vide which the application filed by defendant-respondent No. 7 for amendment of the written statement has been wrongly allowed.
In the suit brought by Karan Singh and Shamsher Singh for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 6 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, defendant No.7 – Harjeet Kaur has filed application for amendment of her written statement. She has prayed for permission to take the plea that Sukhbir Singh never entered into the agreement dated 27.6.2000 and Karan Singh had no money to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 27.00 lakhs. She also wanted to add that
C.R. No. 3876 of 2010
2
Sukhbir Singh has not received any earnest money and the possession of the suit land was never handed over to the plaintiffs. She also wanted to add that her signatures on the writing dated 13.1.2002 were obtained fraudulently. She finally wanted to add that she has no right to transfer the share of minor children in the suit land.
The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. They have claimed that the applicant could not be allowed to withdraw the admissions already made in the written statement by way of the proposed amendments.
Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court allowed the application vide the impugned order.
Dissatisfied with the said order, Karan Singh has brought this revision.
I have heard Shri Vineet Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M.Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.7.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by way of amendment, the defendant wants to change the entire nature of the defence. According to him, the same could not be allowed because that would harm the interest of the plaintiffs.
The decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons & others 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 27, cannot be lost sight of while deciding such matters where it is clearly laid down that the prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written
C.R. No. 3876 of 2010
3
statement stand on different footings. Laying down that in case of amendment of written statement, the courts are very liberal in allowing the amendment than that of a plaint, it has been held that even the additional ground of defence, which may be inconsistent with the plea already taken in the written statement, can be allowed.
The purpose of amendment is to bring the controversy between the parties into focus. To bring out the real point of controversy, the amendments should be allowed. The rules of procedure have been made to advance the cause of justice and they cannot be used to hamper the said cause.
Learned trial court has allowed the amendment for valid reasons. The admissions, if any, made by defendant No. 7 would remain on the record and would be considered in the light of the amended pleadings.
Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the revision petition.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
23.09.2011. som
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly allowed the amendment of the written statement to add new defences inconsistent with earlier pleas.
Whether altering the nature of defence by amendment would prejudice the plaintiffs untowardly.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons & othersApplied¶24
Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons & others 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 27
Karan Singh
Jodh Singh
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
