AMAR NATH Vs. LAJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 18.7.1992 of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Sunam whereby he allowed the application moved by defendants 1 and 2 under order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) Amar Nath filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale made by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 4. Defendants 3 and 4 were proceeded exparte. However, written statement on behalf of defendant No. 2 was filed in Court admitting the claim of the plaintiff. It may be noticed at this stage that the written statement was not filed through a counsel. After sometime defendants 3 and 4 moved an application for setting aside the exparte proceedings against them. The application was allowed and the said defendants were allowed to contest the suit. They pleaded that they are owner in possession of the property on the basis of a sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 4. It was perhaps at that stage it came to the notice of defendant No. 2 that written statement on his behalf had been filed. He consequently moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment of the written statement. The case of respondent No. 2 is that he alongwith defendants 3 and 4 purchased the property in dispute through registered sale deed dated 3.3.1989 from defendant No. 1. The interest of defendant No. 2 is common with that of defendants 3 and 4 as all of them purchased the property through the same sale deed.

(3.) This application was opposed by the plaintiff on the plea that admission in the written statement cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by seeking amendment. The trial Court, however, on a consideration of the matter, as already noticed above, allowed the application and permitted defendant No. 2 to file amended written statement. It was also noticed that defendant are yet to lead their evidence and the real controversy involved in the suit is about the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 4.