PREM SARUP Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 29th January, 2002 by which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the petitioner-defendant seeking amendment of his written statement has been declined.

(2.) . The facts necessary to take note of for the disposal of the present civil revision are that the petitioner herein is facing a suit for possession filed by the respondent-plaintiff Smt. Savitri Devi in respect of property bearing No. V-59, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner-defendant is contesting the suit inter-alia on the ground that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and payment of court fee. After a protracted trial of about 13 years when the suit reached the stage of disposal an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was moved on behalf of the petitioner-defendant for amendment of the written statement and to incorporate as many as four amendments first being that the market value of the suit property is more than Rupees six lakhs and the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit; the name of widow of Sh. Sant Ram deceased is Savita Rani and not Smt. Savitri Devi and consequently the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; there was an oral family settlement which took place after the death of Sh. Kanshi Ram and the property bearing No. V-59, west Patel Nagar, Delhi fell to the share of the widow of Sh. Sant Ram i.e.Smt. Savita Rani and lastly that the plaintiff had filed a suit against Shri Prem Sarup alias Shri Munshi Ram. The application was opposed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent mainly on the ground that it was mala fide having been moved at a highly belated stage when the trial had almost concluded and it was aimed to delay the disposal of the suit and in any case the amendment was irrelevant and not necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties.

(3.) . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to their submissions. Mr. Y.P.Ahuja, learned counsel representing the petitioner seeks to assail the impugned order firstly on the ground that the delay in filing the application ought not have weighed so heavily with the trial court in rejecting the prayer and secondly that the amendment sought for are necessary for just decision of the suit and there was no mala fide attempt on the part of the petitioner in filing the application with the object of delaying the proceedings. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application was nothing but a mala fide attempt on the part of the petitioner to further delay the disposal of the suit which is pending for all these years. The law with regard to the amendment of pleading is well-settled and amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings provided the same is necessary for just and effective adjudication of the questions in controversy in the suit or proceedings, This right is, however, not absolute and is circumscribed with the condition that amendment should not be mala fide and should not prejudicial and have the effect of by taking out any vested right which has accrued to the opponent. In this case suit filed by the respondent was pending since 1988 and the petitioner is closely related to the respondent-plaintiff and, therefore, he knew well the correct name/description of the plaintiff but at no stage he pointed out such a mistake in her name. Not only this, in a suit filed by him, he himself had described the respondent by the name of Smt. Savitri Devi and not Smt. Savita Rani. In any case the petitioner does not dispute the identity of the respondent being widow of Shri Sant Ram and, therefore, this amendment is not at all necessary. So far as amendment with regard to the valuation of the suit property is concerned, no doubt the petitioner in his written statement has taken up a vague plea with regard to the suit having not been properly valued but had not specifically stated that the value of the suit property was more than six lakhs. The parties have already gone on trial and the trial court has framed issue on this aspect and parties have already had their evidence. The trial court is expected to decide the issue. Depending upon the outcome and finding on the said issue the question of pecuniary jurisdiction would appropriately be decided. The attempt of the petitioner in specifying the value of said property at Rupees six lakhs at this stage of the trial is clearly mala fide and aimed at ousting the jurisdiction of the court which in my opinion cannot be allowed. Similarly it can be observed that oral family settlement sought to be pleaded now was not pleaded in the written statement and such an important plea of defence could not possibly escape from the written statement if such a settlement in fact existed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there was no attempt on his part to delay the proceedings because he did not choose to lead any evidence and simply wanted two documents which are already filed on record to be exhibited. That may or may not be be so, the question is as to whether the far reaching amendments sought by the defendant should be allowed. The answer is plainly in the negative.