USHA RANI Vs. RAM RATI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the application seeking direction to the respondent-defendant No.1 to strike out the averments made in paragraph (v) of preliminary objection No.7 in the amended written statement by incorporating the previous one, has been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell and on the basis of information received under RTI, he moved application for amendment of the plaint by incorporating paragraph 11A and 11B. The same was allowed. Though the defendant filed the written statement but withdrew certain paragraphs from the unamended written statement. Such act is not permissible in law as it amounts to departure from the previous admission. In support of his contention, he relies upon judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 194 , thus, urges this Court for setting aside the impugned order being illegal, perverse, much less, erroneous.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book. The paragraph (v) of the preliminary objection in the unamended written statement reads thus:-