INDERMOHAN SINGH Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present order would dispose of two civil revision petitions both of which have been filed by defendants No.2 to 5 and are arising from the same suit. In CR-6414-2019, challenge is to the order dtd. 31/7/2019 (Annexure P-7) vide which the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement, after the trial had commenced, has been dismissed. In CR-6446-2019, challenge is to the order dtd. 31/7/2019 (Annexure P-9) vide which the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for deletion of new paragraphs added in the amended written statement filed by the petitioners, was allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, there is a Will executed in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2/ defendants No.2 and 3 by Takhat Singh, the admitted owner of the property. It is further submitted that however on account of typographical error while responding to para 5 of the plaint, in the written statement filed by the petitioners/defendants it was inadvertently stated that the averments to the effect that there is no legal Will were "not denied". It is submitted that in fact the petitioners/defendants wanted to deny the said averments as there was a Will in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2. It is further argued that a perusal of the entire original written statement would show that it was the case of the petitioners that the present plaintiff was a consenting party for transfer of the ownership of the property in dispute in the name of defendant no.1 however on account of a typographic mistake in para 9 instead of the word 'consenting party', the word 'contesting party' had been mentioned. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement on the said two aspects has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dtd. 31/7/2019 (Annexure P-7) and the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be set aside as only the typographical errors are required to be corrected by the petitioners. It is argued that the said order dtd. 31/7/2019 (Annexure P-7), which is subject matter of challenge in CR-6414-2019, be set aside and the said revision petition be allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners while arguing CR-6446-2019 has submitted that in the present revision petition, challenge is to the order vide which the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for deletion of the new pleas which had been taken in the amended written statement in response to the amended plaint, had been allowed. It is further submitted that in case, CR-6414-2019 is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to carry out the necessary amendments as prayed for in the application for amendment, then, the present revision petition would be rendered infructuous. It is further submitted that in case the said revision petition (CR-6414-2019) is dismissed, then, the aspect that the amended written statement which was filed in response to the amended plaint is in accordance with law, be considered.