MAHESH CHANDRA TIWARI Vs. RAM DUTT TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an appellant in Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2018 'Mahesh Chandra Tiwari Vs. Ram Dutt Tiwari. The grievance of the petitioner agitated in the present Writ Petition is against the order dated 26.05.2018 by virtue of which his application paper no. 15 x filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in written statement has been rejected. By virtue of the aforesaid application the petitioner has sought an amendment in certain lines of the written statement by changing the word "joint business" to "joint hindu family business". It is this application which has been rejected by the Appellate Court. Apparently, what is reflected from the proceedings, which has reached upto the appellate stage, is that the plaintiff/respondent had instituted an Original Suit No. 78/2015 in which the present petitioner is shown as to be one of the brothers of the plaintiff. However, in paragraph 2 it has been contended that the defendant (petitioner herein) was the brother but he was a licencee occupying a certain part of the property as defined in paragraph 1 of the plaint property. The Suit was instituted on 14.10.2015 and in response thereto the petitioner had filed his written statement on 20.12.2016, where in paragraph 9 following pleadings were raised by the petitioner: ...[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(2.) Apparently, according to the petitioner's case himself he has contended that the property in question falls to be a joint business shop. However, the Suit proceeded and was decreed against the petitioner and consequently a decree of eviction was rendered. On 13.03.2018 the amendment application was filed seeking the following amendment: ...[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) This application for amendment was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the proposed amendment changes the nature of pleading and the basis of claim of the defendant petitioner. He submitted that it would effect the proceedings as the decision of Trial Court that property was acquired by plaintiff by income of joint business. It would amount to withdraw admission. Amendment would introduce new plea.