HARDAM SINGH Vs. DEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revision petitions by the defendants against the common order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whether the defendants' applications for the amendment of their written statements under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, have been rejected. Identical amendments were sought in the applications filed by defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 separately.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a civil Suit for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated September 20, 1990 passed by the civil suit No. 96/24.2.1990 by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Patiala, effecting Plaintiff's right in the land are illegal, null and void. Plaintiffs case is that he never appeared in the suit which was decreed on September 20, 1990. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 filed their joint written statement separately. Both sets of written statements are identical. They admitted that the plaintiff, Dev Singh, was served as a defendant in the earlier suit and he intentionally did not appear in the court. The defendants now wanted to amend the written statements so as to omit the words "intentionally not". They stated that it was inadvertently pleaded in the written statements that Dev Singh had intentionally not appeared in the earlier suit. It is a wrong admission.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the averments made in the plaint as well as in the/written statement would make it clear that the admission contained in Paragraph 5 of the written statement was on account of mistake and inadvertence. The defendants were, therefore, right in law in seeking amendment.