V PONNUSAMI Vs. N LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS against the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application filed seeking to file additional written statement, the revision petitioners/defendants have preferred this revision petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the defendants, they were not able to get the documents and revenue records pertaining to the land showing the actual extent owned by them and now after obtaining the same they came to know that the plaintiff does not own the extent and separate possession as pleaded by him. Therefore it has become necessary for them to file a detailed additional written statement stating how and what extent of land belong to the defendants and plaintiff as per the document which will help the court to arrive at a right decision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Baldev Singh & Ors Etc. , Vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc. , reported in 2006 (5) Supreme 943 wherein THEir Lordships of the Apex Court have held the courts should be extremely liberal in granting prayer for amendment unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. Wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on court to allow amendment of pleading in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. In that context it has been held as follows: - ". . . . That apart, it is now well settled that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. It is true that some general principles are certainly common to both, but the rules that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend his pleadings so as to alter materially or substitute his cause of action or the nature of his claim has necessarily no counterpart in the law relating to amendment of the written statement. Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action. Accordingly, in the case of amendment of written statement, the courts are inclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment of the written statement than of plaint and question of prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigour in the former than in the later case. That being the position, we are therefore of the view that inconsistent pleas can be raised by defendants in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in the case of plaint. "