TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. TEJPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending written statement has been declined by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana by the order dated 13.05.2014 for the reason that the application has been filed belatedly with a view to delay the trial. Another reason ascribed by the trial Judge is that the petitioner has not pleaded in the application as to why such an objection was not taken earlier. What the petitioner wants to adduce in the written statement is that his grand father had made a will which he cancelled. In the writing cancelling the will, there was a mention that the sale deed be executed in favour of the petitioner. But the case of the petitioner is that he had bought the suit plot at a auction from the Ludhiana Improvement Trust and the property has been mutated in his name. As the claim for amendment of the written statement is based on a document, the petitioner would always have the right to produce it through his witnesses when his turn for evidence comes. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit brought by his brother claiming rights in the plot. Since, the petitioner has a right to lead his evidence and to produce his documents when his turn comes, there would be no need, in the considered view of this Court, to allow the petitioner to amend his written statement only to plead that his grand father in the document cancelling his earlier will had mentioned that the sale deed would be executed in favour of the petitioner. The plaintiff's evidence has not yet concluded.

(2.) IN view of the above observations, this petition stands disposed of with the liberty to the defendant to produce the document in his evidence.