NATHU Vs. GANPAT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition the defendant has assailed the order of learned Civil Judge (SD) Mount Abu, Camp Abu Road dated 14. 5. 1999 by which he refused amendment of the written statement.

(2.) ARGUMENTS of both the parties have been heard.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel that the amendment is bona fide is not acceptable for the simple reason that the defendant-petitioner for all the years was waiting and when his turn to lead evidence came he suddenly sprung and moved application to amend the pleading saying that it was a typographical mistake. THEre is no affidavit of his lawyer who is representing him before the Court below that it was due to mistake of his clerk that pleading could not be correctly typed. THEre is no manuscript of the written statement shown to me by which it could be concluded that actual defence of the defendant was that the suit property was not indivisible. So it cannot be believed that the mistake crept in because of typing. THE defendant-petitioner was sleeping all the years and has awaken up from his slumber at the time when his turn to lead evidence has come. It does not show his bona fide. He has cross-examined the plaintiff and his witnesses and in case amendment is allowed, a new case will come up. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that the defendant can take even contradictory pleas and for that he has relied on Basavan Jaggu Dhobi vs. Sukhnandan Ramdas Choudhary Here in this case the defendant is not taking a contradictory plea. Rather he is resilling from his previous admission. He admitted in the written statement that the suit pro-perty was not indivisible and partial eviction was not possible. But now he wants to say that the property was divisible and partial eviction was possible. But now he wants to say that the property was divisible and partial eviction was possible. Thus, he is resilling from his admission which is not bona fide in the facts and circumstances of this case and hence cannot be allowed. THE citation Akshaya Restaurant vs. P. Anjanap & Anr. (3) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on altogether different facts and hence is not applicable to the present case.