SREEKUMAR R.MENON Vs. FRANCISA BABYCHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDERS passed disallowing amendment of the written statement and to reopen the evidence closed in a suit for mandatory injunction and other consequential reliefs are under challenge. The plaintiff/first respondent relied on Ext.A3 indemnity bond alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/first defendant in support of the plaint claim. The petitioner had at no point of time conceded the execution of Ext.A3 indemnity bond in the written statement filed. The petitioner by way of abundant caution wanted to amend the written statement to incorporate a specific case of denial of execution of Ext.A3 indemnity bond. This is turned down by the court below by the order impugned and the same is assailed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE entire fabric of the defence set out earlier is not sought to be altered by the proposed amendment of the written statement. The various proceedings in the suit as well indicate that the petitioner does not admit the due execution of Ext.A3 indemnity bond. It is trite law that amendment to written statement should be more liberal than amendment to plaint especially when the nature of the defence in the suit is not sought to be altered.

(3.) I hasten to add that the proceedings for execution of the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser need not be delayed on account of the pendency of the suit. I should take note of the fact that there is no order of injunction restraining the registration of the sale deed of the property in favour of the auction purchaser. Such proceedings shall be permitted to go ahead which will of course be subject to the result of the final verdict in the suit. No further directions are called for and the Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of.