HARVINDER SINGH Vs. GURDEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order by which application under order 6 Rule 17 of the defendant-non-petitioner was allowed by the trial court.

(2.) THE defendant submitted an application for amendment of the written statement wherein the defendant-non-petitioner stated that the land in dispute was originally belonging to his father and his father has also received the above land in succession and in exchange of the land, therefore, in view of the nature of the title of the property and succession, the defendant is not the sole owner of the property and delendant's sons and daughters are also having their shares in the property. It is stated by the defendant that the defendant is illeterate person and was not having the knowledge of the legal position and he has no knowledge that he alone had no right to sell the property and when the sons of the defendant raised objection he came to know about this position. According to defendant the admission made earlier was due to want of knowledge and, therefore, the amendment is necessary. THE defendant prayed that defendant may be permitted to amend the written statement.

(3.) HENCE, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 10. 07. 2001 is set aside and application for amendment of the written statement is dismissed. .