JAMUNA DEVI Vs. CHARANJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Civil Suit bearing No. 297 of 2010 was instituted by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, wherein, he claimed a decree for specific performance, of, oral contract of sale recorded inter-se him and co-defendants No. 1 and 2, contract whereof is with respect to the suit property. The suit was resisted by all the co-defendants, by their(s) instituting a common written statement thereto. However, when the civil suit progressed upto the stage of closure of plaintiff's evidence, whereat, the defendants' were to adduce their evidence upon all the relevant issues, thereat an application cast under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was instituted by all the co-defendants, before the learned trial Court.

(2.) The fulcrum for testing the validity of the pronouncement impugned before this Court, rests, upon whether the amendment in respect thereof leave, for its, incorporation in the relevant paragraph of the written statement, was prayed for, by the defendants, being or not clarificatory in nature. In case this Court upon making fathomings' of the pleadings discerns therefrom qua the proposed amendment being merely clarificatory in nature, ipso facto, thereupon the nature and complexion of the pleadings initially setup by the defendants would remain unaltered. The concomitant sequel whereof would be, of, the leave refused by the learned trial Court, to the defendants, for incorporation in the written statement, the proposed amendment, being ingrained with a vice of illegality besides material irregularity. However, in making the aforesaid gaugings, it is imperative, to make an incisive reading of the pleadings setup by the contesting parties.

(3.) In paragraph-6 of the plaint, which stands extracted hereinafter:-