MAQSOODA Vs. ABDUL KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this revision petition under s. 115 C. P. C. against the order dated 21. 5. 1994 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, by which, the learned Addl. Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under s. 151 C. P. C.

(2.) THE material facts to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows : THE plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for administration against the defendant non-petitioners and one Aishan, who expired during the pendency of the suit. On his death, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application under O. XXII, r. 4 C. P. C. read with s. 151 C. P. C. stating therein that the defendant No. 2 Aishan expired on 6. 6. 1991 in Jodhpur and she had not left anybody else as her heir except the plaintiff and the defendants, who are already on record. It was, therefore, requested that the name of Mst. Aishan be deleted from the title of the suit. THE application of the plaintiff-petitioner was allowed. THE petitioner then submitted a fresh cause title and for making consequential amendments in the suit, the plaintiff moved an application under O. VI, r. 17 C. P. C. and that application was allowed. THE plaintiff filed the amended plaint. THE defendant was asked to file the written statement in view of the amended plaint. THE plaintiff-petitioner has stated that in the amended written statement, the defendants drastically changed the written statement and incorporated several pleas which were not taken in the previous written statement. In Para 4 of the revision petition, the plaintiff-petitioner has detailed such pleas taken by the defendant, which were not taken in the previous written statement filed by the defendants. THE plaintiff-petitioner therefore, felt aggrieved and filed an application under s. 151 C. P. C requesting the learned trial court for ignoring such pleas which are not compatible with the pleas taken by the defendants in the previous written statement.

(3.) IN Thakkar Babulal's case (supra), the Gujarat High Court examined the provisions of O. VI, r. 7; O. VIII, r. 9 CPC and held that a defendant has got a right when he is permitted to file his written statement to the amended plaint, to have his say only with respect to the matter introduced by amendment and no further. The learned counsel, therefore, argued that this revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside after notice to the opposite party.