HARENDRA SINGH & OTHERS Vs. ASHA SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order.

(2.) The revisionists have preferred this revision for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2016 passed in regular Suit No. 224 of 2014, whereby the application for amendment moved on behalf of the revisionist for amendment in the written statement, has been rejected.

(3.) In a suit filed by the opposite party for specific performance of contract, the revisionists filed their written statements on 17.7.2014. Thereafter the opposite party filed replication on 20.8.2014. During pendency of the suit, the revisionists applied for amendment in the written statement on the ground that the case was previously being conducted by Shri Sudhir Kumar Advocate, who prepared the written statement in English. It was said that he prepared the written statement without disclosing its contents to the revisionists. When the revisionists engaged another counsel and he, during the preparation of the case, asked some questions to the revisionists, it was found that some important facts have been left out to be mentioned in the written statement. It was also stated in the amendment application that in order to explain the pleadings, the amendment was necessary.