CHAND SINGH Vs. MAJOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred against the order dated 4th April, 1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur. By this order, the learned Addl. District Judge has allowed the respondents/defendants to amend the written statement filed by them before the learned trial court in the appellate proceedings.

(2.) IT may be pointed out here that in the written statement filed before the learned trial Court, the respondents/defendants had taken the plea that they were the bona fide purchaser for value and their rights were protected under the Transfer of Property Act and the revenue record regarding the suit land was verified. It was further stated that no objection was raised by anybody and the plaintiff had no right to file the present suit. In the application for amendment, the respondents/defendants wanted to add the following para;

(3.) MR . Brar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the real controversy between the parties is with regard to entries made in the revenue record and in the application for amendment, the respondents have pleaded that the entries in the revenue records had already been in existence as far back as 1987 and the respondents by the proposed amendment have only pleaded that those entries have been made on the basis of a will executed by deceased Bazira. He submits that for adjudication of the real controversy, the learned Court has rightly allowed the application for amendment as it was in the interest of justice. He further submits that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and Anr. , J,t. 1995 (6) S. C. 269, even admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas can be taken in the pleadings. He, therefore, contended that in the application for amendment, the respondents had explained the admission and as per the law they could with the plaintiff, agreeing to, sell the suit property on 5th January, 1991 but in the application for amendment, the existence of the agreement dated 25th January, 1991 was not denied but on the contrary it was explained that the said agreement in fact was not for sale but for development of the suit property. The amendment sought in the present case is not of that kind. In the present case, as stated herein above, the stand taken in the original written statement was that the defendants had purchased the suit land whereas in the application for amendment they have now taken the stand that they had inherited by virtue of a will executed by late Bazira Singh. Even otherwise, there is substantial delay of more than 5 years in filing the application for amendment and thus the delay in my opinion, has not been satisfactorily explained by the defendants.