SEWA SAMITI Vs. MULAKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court whereby the application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff Mulkh Ram filed a suit for possession in the year 1984. By way of amendment of the written statement the defendants/petitioner wanted to take the plea of a compromise. According to the defendants, the compromise is already on the record as Ex. D.1 and their evidence has already been led to the effect, and in case the amendment is allowed they do not have to lead any other evidence in that respect. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the plea of compromise was not taken in the written statement though the evidence to that effect was produced by them they would not be able to take the plea of the compromise unless the written statement is not amended. This application was resisted on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that this plea which the defendants wanted to raise in the written statement would be inconsistent with the case already set up and was highly belated, and, therefore, deserved to be disallowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach of the trial Court in this behalf was wrong and illegal and, thus, it had acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, the defendants do not have any other evidence to lead after the amendment is allowed, and, therefore, the question of causing any further delay did not arise. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the amendment ought to have been allowed as prayed for, on payment of costs, if any. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff submitted that the defendants were setting up a new case by taking the plea of compromise and they cannot be allowed to do so at this belated stage, particularly when criminal proceedings are already pending between the parties with regard to the said compromise. In support of this contention, he referred to Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co., 1977 AIR(SC) 680 and A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation, 1967 AIR(SC) 96.