RELIABLE TESTING LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GURCHARAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit instituted by the respondent as plaintiff seeking for a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendant therefrom and also for recovery of Rs. 27,000.00 as arrears of rent and pendente lite and future interest the defendants filed their written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the suit was set down for recording evidence. The plaintiff examined Public Witness . 1 and his examination-in-chief was recorded. At that stage the defendants filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for amendment of the written statement by incorporating few paragraphs in the said written statement, it was stated in the said application by the defendants that subsequent events after the filing of the written statement could not be placed on record by the defendants and that the said events are necessary to be incorporated to determine the controversy between the parties. The aforesaid application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff and the parties were heard on the said application by the Civil Judge, Delhi. By order dated 22.2.1997 the aforesaid application was dismissed holding that the paragraphs sought to be incorporated by the defendants by way of further objections are not required to be incorporated in the written statement and that they have no direct bearing on the merit of the suit. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present petition has been preferred by the defendant.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amendments sought for by the petitioner in the written statement are necessary and vital to determine the real controversy between the parties and as they relate to subsequent events after the filing of written statement the same should have been allowed to be incorporated in the written, statement. He also submitted that even if the said amendments are allowed the same would not change the nature of the defence in any manner and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent however, submitted that none of the aforesaid averments sought to be incorporated in the written statement could be said to be subsequent events. It was also submitted that there is admission in .he written statement and if the amendments are allowed the same would amount to allowing the defendants to withdraw the admissions. It was submitted that most of the averments sought to be incorporated are reiteration of the facts already existing in the written statement and some of such averments are in the nature of evidence and accordingly, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application.