HAR LAL Vs. MANBHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order dated August 21, 1986, of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby he has allowed the defendant's application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of his Written Statement. The facts giving rise to this petition may be recounted in brief.

(2.) Har Lal, petitioner, filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated February 9, 1979, alleging that the defendant Manbhar had agreed to sell his land for a consideration of Rs. 20,250/- out of which Rs. 18,000/- had been paid at the time of execution of the agreement for sale; that the balance amount of Rs. 2,250/- was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed which was to be executed within two months of the date of the execution of the agreement; and that since the defendant did not agree to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. The suit was resisted by Manbhar, defendant-respondent. He filed a Written Statement and in para 2 thereof pleaded that the averments in para 2 of the plaint were not admitted and were denied. He further pleaded that the whole action of the plaintiff seemed to have been grounded on deceit and that the plaintiff had never asked the defendant to get the sale deed registered. He also raised other pleas in the Written Statement.

(3.) The learned trail judge decreed the suit. Manbir filed an appeal and made an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C., for amendment of the Written Statement. It was stated in the application that the applicant be allowed to make an amendment of the Written Statement and be permitted to add to the averments in para 2 that the defendant was not married and had no children, his parents were dead, he wan illiterate and a simple person and that he knew only to sign; that Har Lal and Shiv Lal had conspired in order to grab his land and property; that Shiv Lal had made false allegations against the defendant; that the latter had committed a theft in his house and had claimed the ornaments which were defendant's property which he (the defendant) had pledged with Chhajj, Rup Ram and Mahabir, glomiths, as belonging to him (the former); that the defendant had been coerced by the police and forced to thumb mark certain papers; that it seemed that one such paper had been used to prepare an agreement for sale, and that this was a false document and no sale consideration had passed. This application was opposed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge, however allowed the application and permitted the defendant to amend the Written Statement. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.