KHATOON BEGUM Vs. ABBAS ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial Court had rejected the application for amendment ofthe plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC holding that the application for amendment of the plaint is · delayed. The suit was pending since 1988 and it has been held in the impugned order that the applicant had not explained in his application how and in what manner he has come to know the facts and at what time.

(2.) COUNSEL for the applicant says that he wanted to amend the plaint as a consequence of the amendment in the written statement in para 5(a) where in the non -applicant had stated by way of subsequent events that the applicant had obtained an alternative accommodation which is suitable for his residence.

(3.) HAVING heared the learned Counsel for the parties this Court is of the opinion that the applicant had come to the Court with a plea that she required the suit house bona fide for herself and the members of her family. She had also stated in her plaint that she had no other alternative accommodation in her possession in the city of Bhopal. The subsequent event which is alleged by the non -applicant in his written statements was not within the contemplation of the applicant when the plaint was filed. However it is a rule of pleadings that the plaintiff need not controvert what is alleged in the written statement. The additional allegations made in the written statement are deemed to be denied. Therefore there is no question of filing a consequential amendment in the plaint. The consequential amendment is only confined to written statement if an amendment is in the plaint. Even without amendment the applicant shall be able to prove her case that the alternative accommodation in her possession, if any, was not suitable for her purpose.