From the record, I find that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement was moved by the defendants. It is stated in the application that plaintiff filed the suit treating defendants to be in possession of the suit property as a licensee. In fact, defendant No.1 is owner of the suit property on the basis of family settlement in which plaintiff got land measuring 87 kanals 16 marlas whereas defendant No.1 got plot No.64-65 measuring 8 kanals 6 marlas 139 sq.ft. i.e. property in dispute. It is further stated that the family settlement dated 01.04.1991 arrived at between Gurpal Singh, Joginder Kaur and Inderjit Singh, is completely acted upon and applicants instructed their counsel to file written statement in accordance with the facts stated above and they signed the written statement under the bonafide belief that written statement has been drafted by their counsel in accordance with the instructions given by them. But the perusal of the written statement made by defendant No.1 with the help of their new counsel revealed that said written statement has been wrongly drafted. Therefore, defendants want to amend the written statement. Plaintiff contested this application by stating that the application is not maintainable and that the defendants want to withdraw the admissions and to make out new case which is inconsistent to the pleas already taken by the defendants in the written statement. On merits, the plaintiff denied the facts mentioned in the application and stated that the story of alleged family settlement now sought to be set up is false and concocted one.
