SURAJ KORE Vs. SINGARO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the order allowing an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant. The suit is filed for declaration and for injunction in relation to the suit property claiming to be the property of Bihari Lal and the plaintiff claimed the same to have been conveyed to him through a document dated 14.03.1983 styled as a lease for a period of 99 years for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- stated in the document.

(2.) The suit has been filed on 31.05.2007 and statement has been made on 01.10.2007. In the written statement, the defendant would meet the averment in the plaint in para 1 to the following effect:-

(3.) I have no doubt in my mind that the order of the court below is untenable. The precept in law is that the courts shall be liberal in allowing for amendment to a written statement and the normal parameters that are applicable for amendment of pleadings of plaintiff to prevent inconsistent pleas shall not be applicable for defendant. Beyond this difference, every other aspect regarding amendment must be always considered by the court to see whether there is any prejudice or not to the opposite party or not. We have come by a new dispensation after the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code under Order 6 Rule 17 by Act 46 of 1999 that prohibits any application for amendment after the commencement of trial and the exception granted is such amendment on fact which was not in spite of exercise of due diligence, the party did not know.