SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition impugning the order dated 16th May, 2006. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for the declaration to the effect that they are the owners in possession of the suit land. During the course of the proceedings, the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs was recorded. As far as the evidence of the petitioners is concerned, the same is yet to commence.

(2.) The petitioners moved an application for amendment of their written statement to incorporate the following preliminary objections:

(3.) This was opposed by the respondents who stated that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked as the fact of the earlier litigation was in the knowledge of the petitioners which is reflected from the fact that a specific question was put to PW.4 during the recording of his evidence and the amendment which is sought to be made in the written statement is, therefore, not bonafide. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have only sought to incorporate a preliminary objection in their written statement and that the only evidence that they would tender in evidence is the judgment of the civil court passed in the earlier suit filed by the respondents and, as such, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioners either on account of the delay or otherwise. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported as 2006 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 577 Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. v. K.K. Modi and Ors. and a judgment of this Court reported as 2006 (1) Law Herald (P&H) 442 Harbheg Singh and Anr. v. Darshan Ram and Ors.