H.M.SHARATH CHANDRA Vs. N.D.BHAGYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are the defendants in the Trial suit are before this Court seeking for a certiorari to quash the order dated 05.08.2019 passed on I.A.No.8 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.48 of 2013 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet and for allowing of the said Interlocutory Application No.8.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are that the respondents who were the plaintiffs in the suit claiming to be the wife and children of late S.R.Nagaraj have filed a suit against the petitioners who are arrayed as defendants seeking for specific performance of the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 04.01.2005 which is allegedly executed by the petitioners in favour of late S.R.Nagaraj. In the said suit, the petitioners who are defendants entered appearance through their advocate and filed their written statement. In the said written statement, it is categorically denied that no such agreement of sale has been executed. The transaction is one for loan where the defendants had obtained a loan of Rs.70,000/- from late S.R.Nagaraj towards which the defendants have signed blank papers and handed over the same to late S.R.Nagaraj. It is also stated that misusing these signed blank papers, the plaintiffs or their predecessor S.R.Nagaraj have converted the blank signed papers into an agreement of sale with an intention to gain the defendants property illegally. In the said written statement, it is also alleged that S.R.Nagaraj during his lifetime never requested for or demanded for the execution of the sale deed and is only on his death, the plaintiffs have filed a false and frivolous suit.

(3.) Subsequently to the evidence being led, the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for amendment of the written statement filed by introducing new paragraph No.12A so as to contend that the alleged agreement of sale dated 04.01.2005 is a rank forged document created by the plaintiffs or their predecessor, in collusion with the alleged attesting witnesses and the scribe. The said amendment was sought for on the ground that by oversight or due to inadvertence, there is no specific pleading with regard to the fact of forgery of the said document by the plaintiff and it is only upon the change of the advocate, the new advocate advised the first defendant to incorporate the above amendment.