BHAGWANT SINGH Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is at the instance of the defendant whose application for amendment of the written statement filed after the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence and when he obtained his own turn to give evidence, the Court below declined the amendment of the petitioner before this Court. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement to sell and the defence is that the document is a forgery and the plaintiff is trying to use the signature on the blank papers. Learned counsel state that he was now trying to bring an explanation about the circumstances under which the forgery was perpetrated. The legal requirement would be that act of deception or fraud must be specifically pleaded in its details and the defendant ought not to set up such detail in his written statement. The counsel would argue that the Courts shall be liberal in allowing for amendment to written statement than the fetter that may apply with greater vigour for the plaintiff's cause The counsel would refer to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale and others, 2007 4 MPLJ 419, that the amendment which will enable the Court to pinpoint would consider the real dispute between the parties should be allowed. The counsel would refer to Usha Balashaheb Swami and others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, 2007 2 RCR(Civ) 830, where the Court would held that in cases of amendment of written statement defendant would be entitled to even give a new defence which is inconsistent and even the admission made in the pleadings could be explained in the amendment. The same point was reiterated by Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another, 2006 6 BCR 710. This Court in Smt. Bhana Vs. Krishan Kumar and others, 2012 167 PunLR 717, that if there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court for amendment which could be compensated by cost.

(2.) While I grow by my knowledge by previous judgments which the counsel cited, I find no use of their application in any sense. The amendment that was brought to CPC by Act 46 of 1999 sets out a new paradigm for consideration of what an amendment could be brought and casts off any attempt to bring modification in the pleadings after the commencement of the trial. Law also carves out exception for allowing for amendment in respect of matter which a party had not known inspite of due diligence. Beyond this, if we must apply rules of discretion and believe that cost will be panacea for all ills in pleadings, we literally skirt the intendment of the amendment to the CPC for order through the amended Act.

(3.) There is nothing in this case which is brought by an amendment which the petitioner did not know already. The liberality of consideration for a defendant to bring an amendment must still to be seen through the prism of what is appropriate procedure. If the defendant cannot explain why the pleadings could not be made earlier of the aspect which he knew, then there is no scope for examining anything further on whether it is an inconsistent plea or whether it is an explanation. They must all be subordinated to the larger requirement set down by the amending provisions.