AMAR SINGH Vs. PUSHPA KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 25th February, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kasauli, whereby she rejected the plaint filed by the Defendants for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) THE Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs) filed a suit claiming to be owner in possession of the suit land and prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants from causing interference in the ownership and possession of the Plaintiffs. The stand of the Petitioners -Defendants was that though they had initially agreed to sell the suit land to Shri Janak Raj but this deal did not finally mature. According to the Defendants the sale deed reflected the sale consideration only of Rs. 40,000/ - whereas in fact total sale consideration was of Rs. 4,00,000/ - out of which Rs. 40,000/ - only were paid which was reflected in the sale deed and the balance amount of Rs. 3,60,000/ - was to be paid at the time of the mutation. The case of the Defendants was that Shri Janak Raj did not want to take possession of the land in furtherance of the sale deed and also did not make any attempt to get the mutation attested in his favour since the deal stood cancelled. The suit aforesaid was filed in the year 2007 and the written statement was filed by the Defendants on 23.7.2007. Thereafter issues were framed and evidence were led by the Plaintiffs and the case was fixed for Defendants evidence on 5.10.2010 when the present application for amendment was filed. The basic plea raised by way of amendment is that the Defendants want to file a counter claim praying that a decree be passed directing the Plaintiffs to execute a dead of cancellation in respect of the aforesaid sale deed. This application was disallowed by the trial Court hence the present petition.

(3.) ORDER VI Rule 17 reads as follows: Amendment of pleadings. -The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just 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 trail.