CHAND SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit to the effect that he was owner in possession of the disputed land in pursuance of a registered sale deed executed on June 6, 1936. Since the defendant-respondent did not agree for the sanctioning of the mutation, a suit for declaration has been filed. At the initial stage, the defendant appeared through a counsel and admitted the claim of the plaintiff. However, at later stage the defendant has filed an application for amendment of the written statement withdrawing the admission of the claim in written statement. The amendment has been allowed and the defendant has been allowed to contest the suit by the trial Court under the impugned order Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri D. R. Mahajan has argued that after the claim of the plaintiff was admitted, the trial Court had do jurisdiction to allow the amendment in the written statement withdrawing the admission in the written statement. For this proposition, he has cited M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co Ltd. and Anr. v. M/s. Ladha Ram and Co. A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 680 and Haji Mohammad Ishaq wd/o S. K. Mohammad and Ors. v. Mohammad Iqbal and Mohammad Ali and Co. A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 798.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant respondent has brought to my notice Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 463 and Ganeshi v. Smt. Rajwan and Anr. , 1985 Rev L. R. 508. Having given thougtful consideration to the entire matter, this Courtis of the view that there is no force in the revision petition It is the case of the defendant respondent that he did not appear and file any consenting written statement and that he was impersonated. If it is proved ultimately by leading evidence that the defendant never engaged a lawyer and never filed any written statement, it would be much too much for the Court to shut the defence of the defendants at this stage. On the other hand, if the execution of the sale deed is proved, there is no doubt that the decree would be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The present is not the case of the type in which the ratio of one judicial pronouncement or the other can be safely applied In the first instance the facts have to be proved particularly when some criminal cases were also pending between the parties. Any expression made by this court would amount to expression of opinion and in view thereof without expressing any thing on the merits of the case, the safer course would be to allow the amendment in the written statement so that the case can be decided on merits.

(3.) IN the light of the observations made above, the revision petition is found to be without any merit and is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.