Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 214 (PNJ)

Sheo Ram v. Madhu Ram

2009-01-27

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2009
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. CM No. 7896-CII of 2008 CM is allowed. Annexures P-1 and P-2 are taken on record. CR No. 2351 of 2008(O&M) This is defendants revision petition challenging the order dated 3.4.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Narnaul whereby amended written statement filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the amended plaint filed by the plaintiff has been rejected on the ground that the defendant- petitioner cannot take the new pleas in the written statement. 2. The plaintiff-respondents, on 24.9.2001, filed suit for declaration that they along with defendants No. 12 to 17 are in possession of 1/3rd share as Gair Marusi against defendants No. 2 to 11 of land measuring 3 bighas 15 biswas situated at Narnaul, as per jamabandi for the year 1989-90 and also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession and also for correction of jamabandis for the years 1984-85 and 1989-90. 3. The aforesaid suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement dated 19.10.2001, to which replication was filed by the plaintiff- respondents. 4. The plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint which was allowed vide order dated 20.7.2006. After allowing the amendment, the Civil Court granted opportunity to the defendants to file written statement to the amended plaint vide order dated 20.7.2006 which is reproduced as under : "Order pronounced. Vide my separate order of even date, the application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC is hereby allowed subject to cost of Rs. 200/-. To come up on 28.8.2006 for filing written statement as well as payment of cost. Sd/- ACS (SD) Narnaul 20.7.2006." In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 20.7.2006, the defendant-petitioner filed written statement in the case. 5 The plaintiff-respondents filed an application under Section 151 CPC dated 7.11.2006 to the effect that the defendants have raised a new plea in the written statement to amended plaint which cannot be permitted. The aforesaid application was contested by the petitioner stating that since the plaint was amended and after filing of amended plaint, the petitioner had filed written statement to amended plaint, he is entitled to raise all pleas. Vide impugned order dated 3.4.2008, the aforesaid application filed by the plaintiff- respondents has been allowed and the defendant has been directed to delete the new pleas taken by him in the amended written statement. Vide impugned order dated 3.4.2008, the aforesaid application filed by the plaintiff- respondents has been allowed and the defendant has been directed to delete the new pleas taken by him in the amended written statement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that vide order dated 20.7.2006, no restriction was put upon the defendant-petitioner and he was allowed to file the written statement to the amended plaint. In Girdharilal v. Krishan Datt, AIR 1960 Punjab 575, this Court held that there is no rule which restricts the defendant when he is called upon to file a written statement to an amended plaint. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced :- "There is no rule of law, statutory or otherwise, which restricts or limits the defendant when he is called upon to file a written statement to an amended plaint, to the plaintiffs claim, to any particular pleas. The general scheme of the Code of Civil Prodecure and the policy underlying the law of pleadings does not suggest that the new written statement should be confined and restricted to the amended portion of the plaint and should not contain any other additional plea. The question does not appear, strictly speaking, to be one of amendment of the first written statement which could only be effected with the permission of the court; it really pertains more to the right of the defendant to contest the suit as made out in the amended plaint read as a whole. The law relating to pleadings should not be construed and applied with undue rigidity and strictness if no prejudice or embarrassment towards fair trial of the suit is caused. It would of course be open to the Court to consider whether or not, being an afterthought, the pleas in question lacked merit, but the right of the defendant to raise the new pleas could hardly be negatived by reference to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 only. It would of course be open to the Court to consider whether or not, being an afterthought, the pleas in question lacked merit, but the right of the defendant to raise the new pleas could hardly be negatived by reference to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 only. The sole object of the pleadings is to see whether the parties differ, and that each side may be fully alive to the questions that are about to be argued, so that they may adduce all appropriate evidence, and if this object has been achieved, then to rule out the amended pleadings would tend to defeat, instead of promoting, the cause of justice, for serving which alone the rules of procedure exist." 6. In Jia Lal and another v. Savitri Devi and another, 1995(2) RRR 243 : 1995(1) PLR 742 this Court has held that if the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint, the defendant has a corresponding right to file the amended written statement to the amended plaint. In M/s. Lal Chand Balwant Rai and others v. M/s Harnarain Dass Gharsi Ram and another, 1983 Revenue Law Reporter 61, this Court has held that in the written statement filed in pursuance to the amended plaint, the defendant is entitled to take certain pleas which were not taken earlier and there is no such bar against him to take any other additional plea. In Jagdish Parshad v. Dhansi Ram (Decd.) and others, 1977 Revenue Law Reporter 663, this Court has held that once an amended plaint is filed, a legal right accrues to the opposite party to file fresh written statement wherein new objections can be taken in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or any statutory bar or special order of the Court at the time of allowing the amendment. In view of the aforesaid judgments, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated 3.4.2008 is set aside. The application dated 7.11.2006 is ordered to be rejected. However, this order will not be construed as a restraint on the plaintiff to raise any plea which is available to him in accordance with law to question the merit/legality of such additional pleas raised by the petitioner. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 11.2.2009.