PRITAM LAL AND ANR. Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, dated 7.5.2010 whereby he dismissed the application filed by the Petitioners (here -in -after referred to as the Defendants) for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the Respondent -Plaintiff filed a suit that the land in question is joint land of the parties and that the Defendants is trying to raise construction over it without getting the same partitioned. The Defendants took the plea that the suit land was coming in their exclusive possession since the time of their ancestors and they have raised residential house and cattle shed on the said land. The case of the Defendants was that they wanted to reconstruct the house on the old line. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. Appeal was filed by the Defendants and during the course of appeal the Defendants filed an application for amendment and by means of this amendment they wanted to amplify the plea already raised. In fact, a perusal of the proposed amended para No. 2 clearly shows that only evidence is sought to be pleaded in the pleadings. It is settled law that in a plaint evidence is not required to be pleaded.

(3.) FURTHERMORE , proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 clearly lays down that no amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the party which seeks amendment shows that despite diligence it could not seek such amendment or take such a plea prior to the commencement of the trial.