RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed. The applicants are exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-7, and true copies thereof are taken on record.

(2.) The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order Annexure P-8 vide which the application moved by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending the written statement, stands dismissed.

(3.) The plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/petitioners from interfering or raising any Civil Revision No. 6886 of 2008 (O&M) -2- construction over khasra No.732, which is said to be under the ownership and possession of the plaintiff/respondents. The suit was contested by taking a plea, that the defendant/petitioners were also owners of separate portion of khasra No. 732, which was purchased by them in the year 1980. It was further pleaded, that two shops have been constructed by the defendant/petitioners. The case of the defendant/petitioners was, that the petitioners had placed on record the copy of plaint, application for vacation of stay and the order passed by the Court in the previous suit filed against Harnam Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. In order to have the evidence produced to read in evidence, the application was moved for amendment of the written statement to plead therein, that the predecessor of the plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit which was got dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, the suit was not competent. The application moved by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement has been declined by invoking the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that the suit was filed on 6.7.2001, therefore, the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable. The amendment prayed for was necessary for proper and just adjudication of the case, therefore, was required to be allowed, specially when the law of amendment, is very liberal, specially with regard to amendment of the written statement, wherein a party is even allowed to taken contradictory plea to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the previous suit being for injunction, could not bar the subsequent suit, merely because of withdrawal of the previous suit. It cannot, therefore, be said that the amendment sought was necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents, that the property in dispute is different from the one, which was in the previous suit, therefore, the amendment sought has no relevance to the controversy involved in the suit, and the learned Court below was justified in rejecting the application. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The law of amendment is very liberal. This Court while dealing with amendment is not to go in the merits of the amendment. Once it is not disputed that the previous suit was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, it has relevance, the effect of which can be seen only after allowing the amendment. It is well settled law, that the law of amendment is to be applied liberally, and any amendment which is necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case, should be allowed, specially in the case of amendment of written statement, it is to be more liberal than in case of a plaint.