MADANJIT SINGH Vs. GURSANJOGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT -Madanjit Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 15.07.2013 Annexure P -5 passed by the trial Court thereby dismissing application Annexure P -3 filed by defendant for amendment of written statement Annexure P -2. Respondent -plaintiff Gursanjogat Singh, who is brother of defendant -petitioner, has filed suit vide plaint Annexure P -1 alleging inter alia that there is disputed tubewell connection installed in land of khasra No. 7/27(2 -0) and the said connection was previously in the name of father of the parties. The defendant in corresponding para of his written statement admitted this fact. In amendment application Annexure P -3, the defendant alleged that due to typographical error, the aforesaid admission has been made and the word 'not' was omitted in the written statement. By way of amendment of the written statement, the defendant wants to deny the aforesaid fact. The plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P -4 controverted the averments made in the amendment application. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P -5 has dismissed the application of defendant for amendment of written statement. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

(3.) I have carefully considered the matter. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. The proposed amendment is not being sought to rectify typographical error. On the other hand, there is categorical admission in paragraph 1 on merits of written statement regarding installation of the disputed tubewell connection in the aforesaid khasra number in the name of father of the parties. Even in preliminary objection No. 1, it has been admitted that the connection was in the name of father of the parties. Consequently, by amendment of written statement, the defendant cannot be permitted to withdraw the aforesaid admission.