Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3180 (PNJ)

Jasmer Chand v. Satpal

2006-08-07

SURYA KANT

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.10.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhari, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement, has been dismissed. 2. It appears from the pleadings that the dispute pertains to ownership rights qua the land of Antu Ram and his wife Mansi Devi, who died issueless. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a declaratory suit claiming themselves to be exclusive owners in possession of the said land. 3. Upon notice, the petitioners/defendants filed a written statement dated 11.7.2002 and in its Para No.6, 7 (i) and 8 they averred as follows: 6. Rather the Mutation No.4629 was got sanctioned legally and the same was sanctioned by the concerned revenue officials in accordance with law in the name of plaintiffs and defendants i. e. to the extent of 1/2 share in the name of plaintiffs and to the extent of 1/2 share in the name of defendants.7 (i) Rather the plaintiffs as well as defendants both are the legal heirs of Mansi Devi and are entitled to inherit the property of Smt. Mansi Devi as per their shares and as such the Mutation has rightly and legally been sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs and defendants to the extent of 1/2 shares each.8. It is wrong to allege that the land in suit was previously cultivated by Shri Kartara, but it was being cultivated by Smt. Mansi Devi and after her demise of Smt. Mansi Devi, the land in suit is being cultivated by the plaintiffs and defendants as per their shares. 4. However, in Para 4 of the same written statement, the defendants-petitioners averred as follows: It is also admitted that Antu Ram and Mansi Devi have died issueless and during the life time of Smt. Mansi and after the demise of Smt. Mansi and Antu Ram, the land in suit was being cultivated by Shri Kartara Ram. Rest of the Para is wrong and hence denied. It is wrong to allege that after the death of Shri Kartara, the land in suit was cultivated by the plaintiffs, as alleged. Rather, the land in suit is being cultivated by the plaintiffs and defendants as per their shares. 5. Rest of the Para is wrong and hence denied. It is wrong to allege that after the death of Shri Kartara, the land in suit was cultivated by the plaintiffs, as alleged. Rather, the land in suit is being cultivated by the plaintiffs and defendants as per their shares. 5. As can be seen from the above re-produced averments made in the written statement, it is the positive case of the defendants petitioners that after the death of Antu Ram and his wife Mansi Devi, the land in dispute has been inherited by the plaintiffs and the defendants in equal shares and the same is being cultivated by them as per their shares. At the same time in Para No.4 of the written statement, the defendants petitioners used the expression "admitted" which has given an impression as if they have not denied the fact that after the death of Antu Ram and Mansi Devi their land was being cultivated by Kartara Ram, father of the plaintiffs only. This being never the case of the defendants/petitioners in their written statement, they moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of Para No.4 of the written statement, so as to make it consistent with their stand taken in paragraphs 6,7 (i) and 8 of their written statement. 6. Their application, however, has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide its impugned order after observing that the proceedings in the suit have already been concluded and it cannot be said that amendment now sought by the petitioner was not in their knowledge earlier. 7. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto the respondents have been served. No one, however, appears on their behalf. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners and having regard to the fact that the part of Para No.4 of the written statement which they wanted to amend is obviously inconsistent with their stand taken in rest of the written statement and, thus, there is every likelihood of an inadvertent and or bona-fidy mistake on their part, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the trial court is set aside and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioners is allowed subject to, however, payment of Rs.2000/- as costs to the respondents/plaintiffs. They shall place the amended written statement on record of the trial court, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P5 with this revision petition on or before the next date of hearing in the trial court. 8. Disposed of. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial court on 9.10.2006. .