JAGBIR SINGH Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, dtd. 25/8/2015 (copy Annexure P-11), by which an application filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs in the suit), under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been dismissed. Vide the said application, the petitioners-plaintiffs sought that the written statement filed by the respondents-defendants to the amended plaint be rejected on the ground that without actually moving an application for amendment of the written statement originally filed, a new case was being set up by the defendants, taking shelter of the fact that the application of the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC had been allowed. As per the impugned order, the petitioners-plaintiffs had amended the plaint by adding paragraph 20A (erroneously referred to as paragraph 21A in the impugned order) and instead of filing a written statement simply replying to that additional paragraph, the respondents- defendants have filed a written statement also altering the stand taken in other paragraphs, thereby setting up a new case.

(2.) The learned trial Court after having considered the matter eventually relied upon a judgment of this Court in Mahant Kapil Dev vs. Smt.Parkash Wati and others, 2012(3) CCC 828, to hold that once a plaint had been amended, it gave a complete right to the defendants to file a new written statement, taking whatever plea they wish to. A judgment cited on behalf of the plaintiffs, i.e. Improvement Trust, Patiala through its Administrator/Chairman vs. Jaswinder Kaur and others, 2010(4) CCC 534, was also referred to by that Court but was held to be not applicable in view of the fact that the later judgment was found (by that Court) holding something to the contrary. Consequently, the application was dismissed and a completely new amended written statement replying to the amended plaint was allowed to be filed.

(3.) Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs first draws attention to sub rule 2 of Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable to the States of Punjab and Haryana and UT Chandigarh. The entire rule is being reproduced hereinunder:- "17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be jest, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. (2) Every application for amendments shall be in writing and shall state the specific amendments which are sought to be made indicating the words or paragraphs to be added, omitted or substituted in the original pleading." He thereafter relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court (arising from a judgment passed by this Court), in Gurdial Singh vs. Raj Kumar Aneja, 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 194, from which he points to the following paragraphs:-