SATNAM SINGH Vs. SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition filed by defendant Satnam Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 1.6.2012 Annexure P/7 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing application Annexure P/4 filed by the defendant-petitioner for amendment of written statement. Respondents/plaintiffs have filed suit for recovery of money against defendant-petitioner. In amendment application Annexure P/4, the defendant alleged that Amarjit Singh, Munim/Accountant of Firm of the plaintiffs had issued separate writing Annexure P/3 (account statement) depicting the amounts taken by defendant from the plaintiffs as well as the amounts of agricultural produce sold by the defendant with the plaintiffs. The said document was earlier not traceable but has now been traced. Accordingly, by amendment of written statement, the defendant wants to add that he had sold his agricultural produce for different amounts mentioned in the amendment application and that the claim regarding balance amount brought forward on 1.5.2003 had become barred by limitation. The defendant also wants to plead transactions mentioned in writing Annexure P/3. It is also to be pleaded that amounts of some other produce sold by the defendant have not been depicted by the plaintiff in the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P/5 opposed the amendment application and denied the averments made therein. It was alleged that alleged writing Annexure P/3 has nothing to do with the accounts of the plaintiff.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended that amendment of written statement has been sought after commencement of trial and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. I have carefully considered the matter. The defendant in the written statement Annexure P/2 did not plead that any such writing had ever been given by the Accountant of the plaintiffs or that the same was not traceable. If any such writing relating to account of defendant with the plaintiffs had been given by the Accountant of the plaintiffs and the same was not traceable, the defendant could plead this fact in the written statement but it has not been so pleaded. Consequently, the averment that the said writing was earlier not traceable and has now been traced cannot be accepted to overcome the bar to seek amendment of written statement after commencement of trial. Counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph 4 of the written statement to contend that the aforesaid writing has been pleaded in the written statement. The contention is unacceptable. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, kacha parchies allegedly issued by the plaintiffs have been mentioned relating to sale of produce by the defendant with the plaintiffs. Consequently, the alleged kacha parchis were plural in number pertaining to each transaction of sale of agricultural produce by the defendant with the plaintiffs whereas document Annexure P/3 is a single detailed account statement and cannot be said to be kacha parchies referred to in the written statement. Moreover, in the written statement, the defendant did not even plead that the said kacha parchies had been lost. In other words, the said kacha parchies were in possession of the defendant and he may rely upon the same.