PHOOL KUNWAR Vs. DEEPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS have felt aggrieved of an order dated 2 -4 -1997, passed by learned civil judge whereby their application under order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the written statement has been dismissed and has filed this revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) IN a suit filed by Plaintiffs (Respondents) for partition and claiming certain shares in the suit properties against the Defendants (Petitioners), the Defendants though filed their written statement denying the claim of Plaintiff, came out with an amendment application dated 10 -3 -1997, seeking to raise certain additional pleas some on facts and some in law. It is this application which was rejected by the trial Court by impugned order essentially on the ground that the same is delayed in the sense it being filed after the close of Plaintiff evidence.

(3.) HAVING heard the parties, I am of the view that revision has to be allowed. Law on the issue of amendment is well settled. If the proposed amendment does not change the nature of defence already taken in the written statement, if the same does not result in withdrawing any material admission already made in the written statement, and if it is not necessary for the proper adjudication of real issue which is subject matter of suit, then the court should allow such amendment. If the amendment is introduced during trial -may be after the close of Plaintiff evidence, but if it is otherwise found necessary, then in that event the court should impose cost on the Defendants. How much is the cost to be imposed is the discretion of court, which varies from case to case and also depends upon the valuation of suit, nature of relief claimed etc.