SANJAY BHALLA Vs. VIVEK BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner alongwith Virat Bhalla, respondent No. 9 herein, filed suit (Annexure P-1) seeking declaration that they were owners and in possession of the suit land, with consequential relief of permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendant, i.e. Balraj Kumar, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1 to 3, and also respondents No. 4 to 8 from alienating the entire land in any manner, whatsoever by way of sale, mortgage, etc. Upon notice, defendant-Balraj Kumar, who has since died and is represented by respondents No. 1 to 3 as his legal representatives, filed his written statement (Annexure P-3) wherein he admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and prayed that the suit be decreed. Respondents No. 4 to 8 also filed their joint written statement (Annexure P-2) wherein they also admitted the averments made in the plaint and prayed for decreeing of the suit. Almost a year later, defendant-Balraj Kumar filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amending his written statement so as to withdraw the admission made by him earlier and to oppose the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In the said application, he averred that his sisters, who were his codefendants had engaged Sh. Baldev Singh Sohal and Sh. Satwinder Singh Khinda as counsel to admit the claim of the plaintiffs. He also engaged the same very counsel, with instructions to oppose the suit. His signatures were obtained on blank papers. However, due to inadvertent mistake on the part of his counsel or accidental slip, written statement was filed on his behalf by the same very counsel, who had been engaged by his co-defendants also and it came to be recorded as if he was admitting the suit filed by the plaintiffs. However, on perusal of the documents, i.e. memo, of petition, it was revealed that no family settlement was ever intended to be executed. Also, there was no occasion for family settlement. The document did not bear his signatures, rather, the document was the result of forgery. No possession of land/property had ever been given to the plaintiffs. Therefore, he wanted to replace the entire written statement with a new one. The application filed by defendant-Balraj Kumar was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing their reply (Annexure P-5). It was stated therein that defendant-Balraj Kumar was an educated person, being a graduate. He was conversant with all the languages like Hindi, Punjabi and English. He was able to understand English language very easily. Only after going through the written statement that he had put his signatures on the same. It was further submitted that a family settlement had taken place in the family of Ramji Dass and it was defendant-Balraj Kumar, who appended his signatures on the said family settlement as an attorney of his father Ramji Dass as well as on his own behalf.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the case file, the trial Court allowed the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and permitted defendant-Balraj Kumar, who had died, in the meantime, and is now represented by respondents No. 1 to 3 being his legal representatives to withdraw his admission and amend the written statement. The said order has been challenged by one of the plaintiffs by filing the present revision.

(3.) It is true that the law of amendment in respect of written statement is very liberal and the defendant can withdraw his admission and take inconsistent plea but such a course of action is available to the defendant only after he is able to show that the admission made by him at the time of filing of the written statement initially was erroneous. In the present case, it was a conscious stand taken by defendant-Balraj Kumar by filing his written statement (Annexure P-3) when he admitted paras 1 to 6 of the plaint as correct, para 8 of the plaint as a matter of record and para 9 of the plaint as legal. In view of his said stand, he had prayed for decreeing of the suit. After signing his written statement at the appropriate place, he also verified the contents of paras 1 to 9 being true and correct as per his knowledge and duly signed the same. It is not disputed that defendant-Balraj Kumar was a literate person. As is apparent on the record, he was a graduate. He had signed his written statement and verified its contents by appending his signatures in English. It cannot be said that he did not know the contents of the written statement which he was signing. Moreover, this Court had the occasion to have a look at the photocopy of the written statement (Annexure P-3). The same runs into two pages. The writing on the second page ends in the upper half of the paper. The plea of defendant-Balraj Kumar that his signatures were obtained on a blank paper, thus, cannot be accepted as in such a situation the written statement ought to have been so adjusted so as to end towards the lower half of the page and not the upper half.