JAYEE WOLLEN MILLS Vs. CHATTER PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears, the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5000/ - alongwith interest before the learned Senior Sub Judge. Shimla. Defendant on 21st December 1998 filed written statement on behalf of the defendant slating that for shortage of time and to cut short the litigation defendant submitted "short written statement" restricting it only to the preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court with a further prayer that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for a presentation of the same before an appropriate Court.

(2.) The defendant chose not to file his written statement on the merits of the case or to controvert the allegations made in the plaint. On 12th January. 2000 learned Sub Judge -(5). Shimla. to whom the case was entrusted for disposal, settled several issues on the pleadings of the parties including on merits. The case was directed to be listed for the evidence of the plaintiff. On 30th May. 2000. defendant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure , for the amendment of the written statement stating therein that the defendant had filed only a "short written statement" confining to the preliminary objection regarding the territorial of the Court to hear the matter. The written statement on merits was not filed under the bonafide belief that the Court shall "decide the case on the short ground of jurisdiction without going into the merits of the case by framing a preliminary issue and deciding the same on that short ground alone". This application was contested by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that defendant had filed a written statement confining himself to the jurisdiction of the Court and chose not to deny the facts and allegations in the plaint in terms of Order 8 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which would amount to admissions of the facts and allegations and therefore, the defendant cannot be permitted to amend his written statement to wriggle out of the admission so made.

(3.) The learned trial Judge vide impugned order rejected the application observing that there was no provision in the law to file short written statement raising only preliminary objection. The defendant learned trial Judge held, should have filed complete written statement on merits. The learned trial Court also noticed that the defendant has not specified in his application as to what amendment in the written statement was to be made and proceeded to dismiss this application.