Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 354 (ALL)

Jawahar Singh v. Vedpal Singh

2012-02-08

PRAKASH KRISHNA

body2012
Prakash Krishna, J.;- Heard Shri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the plaintifff-opposite party. The present revision has been filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. against the order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bulandshahr on application no. 41-A in original suit no. 1668 of 2010 whereby the said application for amendment in the written statement has been dismissed. The background facts may be noticed in brief. The aforestated suit has been filed for specific performance of contract to sell. Pleadings are complete. Parties have led their evidence and the evidence is closed. When the matter came-up for final hearing, at that stage, the defendant filed an application for permission to amend the written statement by adding that the suit is barred by Sections 20 and 34 of Specific Relief Act. The said application has been rejected by the order under revision. When the matter was taken-up yesterday, the applicant's counsel was directed to obtain instruction whether the defendant would like to produce evidence in support of the above plea or not. Today, Shri Lalit Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant made a statement before me that if the amendment in the written statement is allowed, the defendant would not lead any other or further evidence and the trial court may proceed to hear the final arguments. A bare perusal of the amendment application would show that the defendant is trying to raise a legal plea that the said suit is barred by Sections 20 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The said amendment is being opposed by learned counsel for the opposite party on the ground that it has been filed with a design to delay the disposal of suit. The fact remains that the amendment sought for is legal in nature, it is not going to affect the proceeding in the suit in view of the categorical stand taken by the defendant that the defendant would not lead any evidence. In view of the understanding given by the defendant's counsel before this Court, the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. stands allowed subject to payment of Rs.500/- as cost. The defendant shall incorporate the aforesaid amendment before the next date fixed in the suit and the plaintiff-opp. In view of the understanding given by the defendant's counsel before this Court, the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. stands allowed subject to payment of Rs.500/- as cost. The defendant shall incorporate the aforesaid amendment before the next date fixed in the suit and the plaintiff-opp. party shall file reply to the amended pleas on or before the next date fixed, if any. The court shall now proceed to decide the suit without any further delay. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned order dated 12.1.2012 is, hereby, set aside and the revision is allowed.