NAEEMA BI Vs. MOHD SHAREEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 13th August 2007, the application moved by the plaintiff (respondent herein) under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint was allowed. However, while allowing the application, subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/-, the learned trial court observed "opportunity of defendant to file WS has already been closed and the same cannot be reopened in view of the amendment which is only to add subsequent events. " Thus, the right of the petitioner to file written statement was denied. The order has been challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) IT is settled law that whenever amendment to the pleading is allowed, it amounts to bringing on record new facts and new pleadings on the part of the party amending the pleadings and the opposite party has a right to give response to the pleadings so amended. This right cannot be taken away by the Court as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Even if a party has not filed written statement earlier and the plaintiff later on amends the pleadings thereby bringing on record new facts, the opposite party will get a right to file written statement as soon as the amendment is allowed. Not affording an opportunity to the contesting party to contest the pleadings which has been allowed to be amended would amount to negating the justice. In the present case, a perusal of the earlier order sheets would show that at no stage, right of the defendant to file written statement was closed. The case was at the stage of deciding interim applications and the maintainability of the suit. The defendant had not filed written statement in view of the fact that the proceedings in the case were stayed by the High Court in between. Thereafter, the defendant was proceeded ex parte. The defendant again started participating in the proceedings and even after allowing the amendment, the Court has fixed the case for arguments on the maintainability of the suit.

(3.) UNDER these circumstances, I consider that the order of the trial court that the defendant would have no right to file written statement was beyond jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to law. The petition is allowed. This part of the order that the defendant would not be allowed to file written statement is hereby set aside. The defendant would have right to file written statement to the amended pleadings.