SWARAN SINGH Vs. SEWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated January 17, 1990 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement of the defendant Swaran Singh.

(2.) Sewa Singh earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession over the suit land under agreement of sale. Thereafter, he filed the present suit for possession by specific performance of agreement for sale dated March 24, 1983, in respect of plot measuring 7 Marlas as described in the suit. In the alternative he prayed for decree for Rs. 10,000/- for refund of the sale price with 12 percent interest thereon. In the written statement filed by Swaran Singh, an objection was taken regarding maintainability of the suit in view of pendency of the previous suit. However, subsequently on dismissal of the previous suit the present application for amendment of the written statement was filed that decision in the previous suit would operate as res-judicate. This application, as stated aforesaid, was dismissed by the Senior Sub Judge, Kapurthala.

(3.) On perusal of the bare facts as stated above, amendment asked by the defendant should have been allowed for proper decision of the suit as it was during pendency of the present suit that the previous suit was finally disposed of and as rightly pointed out in the impugned order its decision was going to have some effect on the present suit. The apprehension of counsel for the petitioner is genuine that in the absence of specific plea probably the question of res-judicata could not be agitated and it was necessary for the defendant to move the Court for amendment of the written statement. Amendment of the pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the suit. It can also be allowed even at the appellate stage. In the present case the suit is at the initial stage that is still pending in the trial Court. For proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, it is necessary that the amendment asked for is allowed. No new fact is being introduced as the factum of pendency of the suit was earlier mentioned in the written statement. It is only its final decision and its effect on the present suit that it necessitated filing such an application.