BHURIA RAM Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana declining the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) to amend the written statement filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 80,000/- plus interest against the petitioner on the basis of pronote in which defendant-petitioner filed written statement in which a preliminary objection was taken to the following effect :

(3.) THIS application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been filed by the defendant to amend written statement earlier filed by the defendant in the suit. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount on the basis of pronote and receipt executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant wants to amend para 4 of the written statement of preliminary objection in the earlier written statement filed by the defendant. The plaintiff has taken preliminary objection in para No. 4 that plaintiff has definitely prayed fraud with the defendant as the defendant has never borrowed any such amount nor executed any pronote and receipt. Now the defendant wants to add in para No. 4 that brother of plaintiff Sham Lal was doing business of commission agent (sic) customer of the abovesaid Sham Lal and defendant frequently go to the shop of above said Sham Lal to sell crop as a driver of the Tractor and the above said Sham Lal usually got signature of the defendant in token of money advanced for diesel and other expenses on blank papers. In this way the above said Sham Lal has managed to get the signature of defendant on the lower part of pronote and receipt by placing it between blank papers. Hence, the defendant has not executed any receipt or pronote in token of loan. Signature on pronote are forged by the plaintiff by free-hand forgery. However, the defendant wants to set up a new case by amending para No. 4 of the written statement, as the defendant wants to add that brother of the plaintiff Sham Lal has taken signature of the defendant on some blank papers and used it by the plaintiff to file this suit against the defendant. Whereas, earlier the defendant has not taken any plea regarding forgery played by the brother of the plaintiff Sham Lal with the defendant. Moreover, the defendant wants to amend para No. 1 of the written statement on merits, whereas in earlier written statement, it is admitted by the plaintiff that plaintiff was in good terms with the defendant but now the defendant wants to substitute para No. 1 of the reply on merits that brother of the plaintiff Sham Lal was in good terms with the defendants as being his customer. However, the admission made by the party earlier cannot be withdrawn as admission in the earlier written statement filed by the defendant. It is admitted that defendant and brother of the plaintiff Sham Lal has good relationship. Counsel for the plaintiff relies upon 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 614 : 1998(1) Judicial Reports 350 in case Sant Parkash Singh v. Nirmal Singh wherein it was held :-