TARA SINGH Vs. PREM CHAND PANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil revision is directed against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 6, Jodhpur dated 14.10.97 by which he rejected the amendment application of the defendant.

(2.) A suit for eviction under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act is pending before the trial Court against the petitioners. He has averred in the written statement that there was an agreement of sale between the parties and had paid some amount towards sale-price. He has also made a counter claim in the written statement. The case of the petitioners is that the plaintiff had purchased the house from the Rajasthan Housing Board on instalments and that the petitioners came to know that no registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff landlord. They also came to know that a house purchased from Housing Board on instalments cannot be let out. The petitioners defendants submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC that the amendment to this effect be made in the written statement. They wanted to raise a plea that the suit was not maintainable on the grounds that the plaintiff was not authorised to let out the house and that he did not get a registered sale deed executed in his favour. This amendment was disallowed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the question of amendment of written statement is to be seen from a different angle than the amendment in the plaint. He cited AIR 1979 Himachal Pradesh page 54, Hari Dass and others v. Kali Dass, wherein it has been observed that the amendment of a written statement cannot be considered on the same principles as amendment of the plaint. He also submitted that the law about amendment in written statement is very lenient and even contradictory pleas can be taken in the written statement. He submitted that even at the stage of appeal new plea can be taken and for the purpose he cited 1991 Civil Court Cases page 528 (Allahabad), Civil Misc. Writ No. 15547 of 1984. Gauri Bala Dutta v. IInd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi and another, decided on 21.2.1991. He submitted that this amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties.