SHARANJIT KAUR Vs. KULWANT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Batala whereby, the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant no. 1 was rejected. The Trial Court was of the considered opinion that since a period of almost 3 years had passed after filing of the written statement and since even issues have been framed and the plaintiffs evidence had been recorded and the case being fixed for their cross examination at that stage the application for amendment of facts which were in the knowledge when the written statement was filed could not be allowed since due diligence factor was also missing.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the respondent Kulwant Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 02.01.2009 which was executed by Sukhwant Singh, the husband of the present petitioner. The land measuring 12 kanals and 3 marlas was the subject matter of the agreement and a sum of Rs. 1,60,500/- was allegedly received by him. In the initial written statement filed by the present petitioner since Sukhwant Singh had died before the written statement was filed, the plea taken was in para no. 2 that the earnest money was not received by said deceased and that the plaintiff and the deceased were near relatives. Due to bad habits and due to the habit of drinking, Sukhwant singh had fallen into the society of the plaintiff who had forged and fabricated the alleged agreement and there was no occasion for Sukhwant Singh to sell his land at the throw away prices as the value was much more. A specific plea was taken that the agreement was false, forged and fictitious.

(3.) The written statement was filed on 23.04.2010 and thereafter, after an year, issues were framed on 28.05.2011. The plaintiffs' statements as PW-1 and PW-2 were recorded and when the case was fixed for cross examination, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC came to be filed wherein, the addition was sought in para no. 2 of the written statement to the extent that the plaintiff was in the business of money lending on interest basis and Sukhwant Singh had borrowed sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him on interest and a formal agreement as security was executed for the return of the loan. Another agreement had been got executed and the period was extended from 6 months on the return of the loan. The said agreements had not been read over to the deceased and he had, in June, 2011 returned Rs. 1,00,000/- in the presence of respectables and after receiving the basic amount, the plaintiff was raising a dispute regarding the rate of interest which was never agreed by the deceased. The plaintiff had also tampered with the agreement and forged and fabricated the same and added the name of Gulzar Singh as attesting witness. To incorporate the due diligence, it was averred that another counsel had been engaged and since earlier counsel had not mentioned the facts which were brought by the defendant to his knowledge and, therefore, there was the need to amend the written statement.