JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral) OMP No. 512 of 2012 The present application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( in short ‘CPC’) has been moved on behalf of defendant No. 1 with a prayer to amend the written statement filed by him. 2.The main suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 1.1.2009, said to have been executed in their favour by defendant No. 1. In para-7 of the preliminary submissions/objections, the amendment sought is to substitute the name of “UCO Bank, Ghumarwin” with “H.P. State Co­operative Bank, Ghumarwin”. The amendment being of formal nature can very well be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. In para-4 of the plaint, it is averred that after execution of the aforesaid agreement, defendant No. 1 had agreed to settle the matter amicably vide writing dated 19.7.2010 executed before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ghumarwin. In the corresponding para of the written statement, defendant No. 1 has altogether denied existence of any such writing dated 19.7.2010. 4. Against the foregoing background, defendant No. 1 has now moved the present application to amend the written statement stating that pursuant to seeking information under the Right to Information Act, he has come to know that the aforesaid writing dated 19.7.2010 was challenged by him by filing a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, H.P. alleging that the same was obtained by the police under pressure. Whereas, the writing dated 19.7.2010 has been brought on record by the plaintiffs, the complaint to the Superintendent of Police dated 21.7.2010 has been filed by defendant No.1 alongwith the application for amendment. 5. The prayer for amendment is based mainly on the ground that at the time of filing the written statement though defendant No. 1 was aware that he had filed some complaint to the higher Police Authorities, yet he was not remembering the exact purport thereof and it is only after he sought the requisite information under the Right to Information Act, he could recollect the entire facts. 6. 6. The prayer for amendment has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground that once defendant No. 1 had denied execution of agreement dated 19.7.2010 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he is now precluded from taking the stand that against that agreement he had filed a complaint to the higher Police Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Admittedly, the agreement dated 19.7.2010 was arrived at before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Its veracity would be looked into only during trial and at the time of final adjudication. However, as far as the prayer of defendant No. 1 for amendment of the written statement to challenge this agreement on the ground that he had assailed the same by way of filing a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, to my mind can very well be taken by him in any case even by way of a contradictory plea, which shall also be subject to adjudication at the time of trial. However, it goes without saying that while filing the written statement defendant No. 1 has not employed due care and caution to inspect the records filed by the plaintiffs due to which the aforesaid lapse appears to have been committed by him which could have otherwise been avoided at the very initial stage. 8. In view of the above, the application is allowed and defendant No. 1 is permitted to amend the written statement, as prayed for. However, it shall be subject to costs of Rs 2500/-. 9.The application stands disposed of. OMP No. 513 of 2012 Heard. The present application under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) readwith Section 151 of the CPC, being consequential in nature to the amendment of written statement allowed separately today vide OMP No. 512 of 2012, is allowed subject to costs of Rs 2500/-. 2. The application stands disposed of.