statement being old cannot be accepted. The record, from which the alleged fact of visit of Jagdish Chand to Kurukshetra came to notice, had also been summoned by defendants no.1 to 3 themselves, and consequently, it is apparent that they were aware of the said record. They could have checked the said record before filing of written statement. Thus, amendment of written statement has been illegally allowed by the trial court being in violation of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It is also significant to notice that defendants no.1 to 3, by amendment, want to take a very contradictory stand. In the original written statement, it has been pleaded that Jagdish Chand was not in a position to walk even from his house in Karnal to the Court at Karnal to execute the agreement before the Notary Public, but on the same dates, now it is sought to be pleaded, Jagdish Chand went from Karnal to Kurukshetra and stayed there for two days. In the original written statement, it has also been pleaded that plaintiff no.1 might have taken benefit of immobility of Jagdish Chand and fraudulently procured the alleged agreement to sell, whereas now even presence of Jagdish Chand at Karnal is sought to be ruled out. Such amendment cannot be permitted.
