AMRAPALI BOUTIQUE PVT LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. SARASWATI REAL ESTATE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD , NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated November 3, 1987, whereby the application seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed. The plaintiff (respondent) Saraswati Real Estate and Investment (P) Ltd. filed this suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale etc. on May 17, 1987. When the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence, the defendants moved the application for seeking amendment of the written statement. According to the said application, the defendants wanted to elaborate certain pleadings already taken by them in the written statement originally. However, the said application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that the defendants by way of amendment want to set up a wholly new case and want to withdraw the admissions in a very clever manner. At the same time the trial Court also observed that "now in the present suit it is not even disclosed as to under what circumstances the written statement in question was filed. When the facts are already existing as per contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff, there is no necessity of the amendment. It is well settled that the pleadings, evidence is not to be mentioned, only material facts are to be mentioned. Thus, under the cover of some elaboration or illucidation, the defendants cannot be permitted to make out a wholly new case."

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the whole approach of the trial Court was illegal and wrong. There was no question of withdrawing any admission made by the defendants in the written statement filed earlier. The pleas are already there in the written statement, but certain facts were not mentioned, which they now want to plead by way of amendment. This is being done with the apprehension that the defendants may not be disallowed to lead evidence on the pleas already taken by them. He further submitted that the amendment in the written statement was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and should have been allowed on payment of costs, if any, if the application was belated one.

(3.) XXX XXX XXX