SHRI CHARANJIT LAL Vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is before this court impugning the order dated 7.1.2011, passed by the learned court below, whereby in an application Filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner-defendant has been directed to delete fresh pleas taken in the amended written statement filed to the amended plaint. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for partition with respect to the property detailed in the plaint, to which written statement was filed by the petitioner. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed by the trial court on 17.2.2006. Against the judgment and decree, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned lower appellate court. In the appeal, the respondent-plaintiff filed application seeking amendment of the plaint and also for permission to adduce additional evidence. The learned court below, while accepting the prayer made by the respondent-plaintiff, permitted him to amend the plaint and consequently permitted the petitioner to amend the written statement. The matter was remitted back to the learned trial court vide order dated 19.5.2009. It was thereafter that the respondent-plaintiff filed amended plaint before the trial court incorporating the permitted amendments to which amended written statement was filed by the petitioner raising certain additional pleas, to which the respondent-plaintiff raised objection. The learned trial court having directed for deletion of the additional pleas raised by the petitioner in the amended written statement, the order is impugned before this court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon Naresh Kumar v. Om Parkash, 1990 97 PunLR 670; Jia Lal and another v. Savitri Devi and another, 1995 109 PunLR 742; Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh and another, 2006 3 RCR(Civ) 844; Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, 2007 2 RCR(Civ) 830; Sheo Ram v. Madhu Ram and others, 2009 3 RCR(Civ) 646and Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and others, 2010 1 RCR(Civ) 27, submitted that the law pertaining to amendment of written statement is quite liberal. The additional issues sought to be raised are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. The same will not change the nature of the suit in any manner. Once the plaintiff had been permitted to amend the plaint, the defendant had the right to file amended written statement taking even additional pleas. All what the petitioner-defendant had stated in the amended written statement by way of additional pleas was that certain preliminary objections are raised regarding maintainability of the suit. The same did not prejudice the respondent-plaintiff in any manner.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff, while placing reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh and others v. Raj Kumar Aneja and others, 2002 130 PunLR 835, submitted that when a plaint is amended, as a consequence thereof the defendant is permitted to only file amended written statement, which is consequential. He cannot be permitted to raise additional pleas as the same would amount to permitting him to amend the written statement. He further submitted that in case the petitioner defendant is permitted to place on record the amended written statement, as was filed by him taking additional pleas, the same would amount to reviewing of the order passed by the District Judge as an application seeking to amend the written statement taking the same very pleas was filed when the matter was pending before the learned lower appellate court, but the same was rejected and the order attained finality. He further relied upon Raees Ahmed v. Shrigopal Prakash and others, 2003 1 CivCC 666 and Improvement Trust. Patiala through its Administrator/Chairman v. Jaswinder Kaur and others, 2010 160 PunLR 463.