RANJIT KAUR Vs. AJAIB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated November 14, 1983, whereby the amendment of the written statement was allowed Anil on that account, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the case was remanded for fresh decision.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated June 5, 1978. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court on February,F, 1983.. In the appeal filed on behalf of the defendant, the also moved an application under Order VI Rule Y7 of the Civil P. C., for amendment of the written statement, ' By virtue of the proposed:amendment, the defendant wanted to fake the plea that he was a member of-the coparcenary and joint Hindu family constituted of him and his sons and, therefore, no 'decree for specific performance of the agreement could be passed against him, That application' was contested on' behalf of the plaintiff. However ?, the lower appellate Court a lowed the Said application on payment of' costs. According to 'the lower appellate ' Court, the proposed amendment:, as only an additional, approach 'to the defence of the defendant, i. e., the agreement relied upon by the' plaintiff was ' not executable and that the amendment of the pleadings could be allowed at any stage and, therefore, on that ground, it allowed the amendment of the written statement: Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel, for the appellant. contended that the defendant had taken all possible pleas. in his.written statement inasmuch as he even denied the execution of the agreement. and also pleaded that it.was the result of fraud and misrepresentation: The learned court further argued that when. the defendant failed to. substantiate, his.pleas in. the trial Court, he moved the application for amendment of the written statement, in appeal, with a mala fide intention to re-open.the whole matter again.. On ; the other hand, the learned. counsel. for the defendant-respondent concluded that the amendment could be allowed of. any stage and, therefore, there was nothing wrong if the amendment was allowed by the lower. appellate Court: According to the learned counsel, the plea,: if allowed, will non-suit..the plaintiff.