PARVATI Vs. FATE RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.12.1994 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 100 of 1992 (CS No. 228/92). By the said order, the learned trial Court allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Defendants and allowed the amendment of the written statement. The suit is for possession and injunction. Originally, the Defendants took the defence of adverse possession. Subsequently, by the application in question, the Defendants prayed that they may be allowed to take the defence that they are the tenants. The learned trial Court was of the opinion that the Defendants should be given proper opportunity to contest the case and unless it is going to change the foundation of the pleadings made in the suit, the amendment should be allowed. According to the learned trial Court the proposed amendment if allowed would not be 'foreign' to the subject matter of the suit. It was held following the decision of the apex Court in : AIR 1957 S.C. 357, that the proposed amendment is necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. A sum of Rs. 300/ - was awarded as costs.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) It is well settled that amendment of the pleadings can be allowed at any stage in the interest of justice and if does not prejudice the rights of the other party and will not change the character of the suit. While considering the question of amendment of pleadings, Court need not or ought not to go into the alleged falsity of the case in the amendment nor the Court has to give its finding on the merits of the amendment without first allowing the amendment, framing issues thereon and allowing both the parties to adduce evidence and make their submissions through arguments. It may be stated that amendment of written statement stands on different footing than the plaint.