V KALPANA Vs. P VENUGOPAL REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the revision petitioners in favour of the respondent, after the respondent closed his evidence and when the case was posted for the evidence of revision petitioners, they filed an application seeking permission of the Court to amend their written statement, by introducing a plea that the second sheet of the suit agreement of sale, Ex.A-1, is substituted with a forged and fabricated sheet which was dismissed by the trial Court by the order under revision, on being opposed by the respondent.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that since the petitioners came to know about the substitution of the second sheet of Ex.A-1 agreement of sale only when the case was posted for their evidence, the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that petitioners who admitted execution of Ex.A-1 in their written statement cannot be permitted to withdraw from the admission by way of amendment, by placing strong reliance in M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., and another v. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co., and since not even a suggestion was put to P.W.1 that the 2nd sheet of Ex.A-1 agreement of sale is substituted for the original sheet.

(3.) Before considering the contention raised, I feel it relevant to refer some of the provisions in the Civil Rules of Practice (for brevity, "CRP"), which have relevance for deciding this petition.