BINDHYACHAL OJHA Vs. MUNESHWAR DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 7.3.2000 passed by Sub -Judge Vth, Siwan in Title Suit no. 82/1987 whereby and whereunder the prayer made for amendment in the written statement of defendant no. 3 under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been allowed. In the original written statement date of ancestor was mentioned specifically as 1968 and now by amendment the same is attempted to be withdrawn and substituted as 1954 whereby making a sea change in the whole structure of the suit and the written statement too, because if such date is allowed to be substituted then the provisions of Hindu Succession Act which came into force in the year 1956 would be totally made underneath. In that way it cannot be said that such date can be mentioned advertently or by mistake. Moreover such amendment has been sought for when the evidence of the parties were going on and the suit was filed in the year 1987. It has become the cardinal principle of law regarding allowance or rejection of amendment as to whether by such amendment some admission made are not allowed to be withdrawn and if such attempt is made the same should be rejected. The other amendments sought for in the written statement also changes the whole structure of the written statement as already mentioned above. The learned court below by the impugned order did not at all consider that aspect of the matter although those have been specifically mentioned in the objection raised against the amendment sought for. Learned court below has even stressed on the point that party should not suffer for ill drafting of pleadings. It is not a matter of ill drafting rather a matter of withdrawal of admission of a party. Hence amendment allowed is definitely bad in the eye of law. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the court below for proceeding according to law. Thus, revision is allowed.