HARI RAM Vs. NIRANJAN LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 417 of 1969 and 680 of 1968. The point involved in both these petitions is identical, namely, whether a revision is competent against the order dismissing an application for the amendment of the written statement under Order 6, rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure. I will refer to the facts of the former Civil revision.

(2.) DURING the pendency of a suit, when the case was at the evidence stage, Hari Ram, defendant, made an application under Order 6, rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of his written statement That application was opposed by Niranjan Lal and his brother Banwari Lal, who were the plaintiffs in the suit. The trial Judge dismissed that application and against his order Hari Ram, defendant, filed a revision petition in this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When this case come up for hearing before me on 22nd October, 1969, I was inclined to allow the proposed amendment but a preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that no revision petition was competent against the order of the trial Judge refusing an application for amendment. In support of his submission learned counsel referred to four unte -ported decisions of Mehar Singh C.J. Viz. Balkishan Dass v. Om Parkash and others. C.R. No. 1091 of 1966. Civil Revision No. 1091, of 1966 decided on 23rd October, 1968; Baldev Singh and others. v. Kapoori, Lal and others. C.R. No. 308 of 1969. Civil Revision No. 308 of 1969 decided on 28th August, 1969; Ajit Singh v. Uttam Singh and others. C.R. No. 677 of 1968, Civil Revision No. 677 of 1968 decided on 1st September, 1969 and Krishan Lal v. Shrimati Tara Wanti C.R. No. 842 of 1968. Civil Revision No. 842 of 1968, decided on 1st September, 1969. All of them were based on the Supreme Court ruling in Radhey Shyam and others. v. Ram Autar and others. C.A. No. 506 of 1965, Civil Appeal No. 506 of 1965, decided on 7th February, 1967.

(3.) SINCE there was obvious conflict between the decision of this Court, I referred the said revision petition to a larger Bench. That is how the matter has been placed before us.