RAJU TOMAR Vs. LOVELY YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 04.9.2014, by which, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendement of the written statement has been rejected.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent No.1 has filed a suit seeking the relief of specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement executed by respondent No.2, in which, the petitioner was the consentor. The petitioner was served with the summons of the suit. Thereafter, written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she was pressurized to sign the written statement by the husband of the respondent. But, after obtaining the certified copy of the written statement, the petitioner came to know that written statement is against the interest of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for withdrawal of written statement, which was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement, which has been dismissed by the trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in civil suit, in the affidavit sworn by petitioner in support of written statement, the petitioner has been identified by the advocate for the plaintiff and written statement does not contain the signature of the counsel. It is further submitted that petitioner being defendant can take inconsistent pleas. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Baldev Singh and others vs. Manohar Singh and another, (2006) 6 SCC 498 and Andhra Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank N. V. and others, AIR 2007 SC 2511.