Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1696 (ALL)

Shahina Riaz v. Sajjad Hussain Israili

2014-05-23

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. This revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is directed against the order of trial court dated 11.02.2014 whereby the amendment application moved by the defendant-revisionist to amend the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff has preferred a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant to deliver vacant possession over the plot in question. It is stated that the plaintiff had executed an agreement to sale dated 07.05.2004 with regard to Plot Nos. G-2 and G-4 situate in Gulzar Residency near Rifa Guest House, Medical Road, District Aligarh for a total sale consideration of Rs.8 lacs, out of which, it is stated, the defendant has made payment of Rs.2 lacs as earnest money. 3. It appears that there was a dispute between the parties in respect of the said agreement and ultimately the respondent/plaintiff preferred the aforementioned suit. The revisionist-defendant moved an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the written statement. A copy of the said application is on the record as Annexure-3 to the stay application. The Court below by the impugned order has rejected the amendment application on the ground that the revisionist in his application has not disclosed the reason as to why the facts sought to be incorporated by way of amendment could not be taken in the written statement itself. It as regards paragraph 23E which is subsequent development. The learned Trial Judge has taken a view that since thi issue has been denied by the plaintiff, therefore, there is no need of the amendment. 4. I have heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the amendments sought by the defendant are necessary to decide the issue involved in the suit. Moreover, the amendment which has been sought to be incorporated by way of paragraph 23E is the subsequent development, which is necessary to be incorporated in the written statement. He further submits that the other fact, which the defendant wants to incorporate is a pure question of law and no prejudice would be caused in case the said amendment is allowed. 6. He further submits that the other fact, which the defendant wants to incorporate is a pure question of law and no prejudice would be caused in case the said amendment is allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri D.P. Singh submits that the application is not bona fide and it has been moved deliberately to linger on the pending proceeding. Therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the amendment application. 7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of amendment application which has been brought on record, it is evident that the amendment sought by the revisionist-defendant is not of such a nature that it will cause any prejudice to the plaintiff's rights; it is not barred by limitation; and the plaintiff cannot be said to be taken to be surprised in these amendments. 9. The Supreme Court in long course of judgment has held that in the case of amendment of written statement Courts are more liberal. Supreme Court in the case of Usha Balasaheb Swami and others. Vs Kiran Appaso Swami and others (2007) 5 SCC 602 observed: "that in case of amendment of a written statement the court would be more liberal in allowing than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter and addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can be allowed." 10. Reference may be made to other judgments of Supreme Court vide B.K. Narayana Pillai V. Parmeshwaran Pillai and another (2000) 1 SCC 712 ; J Samuel V. Gattu Mahesh (2012) 2 SCC 300 ; Ravajeetu Builders & Developers V. Narayanaswamy & sons and others (2009) 10 SCC 84 . 11. In view of the said fact, I am of the view that the reasons mentioned by the trial court for rejecting the amendment application is unsustainable in law. As such the order dated 11.02.2014 as is impugned in the revision is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the revisionist ensures the Court that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought by his client. As such the order dated 11.02.2014 as is impugned in the revision is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the revisionist ensures the Court that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought by his client. The trial court shall make endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously and keeping in mind the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi (2011)8 SCC 249 . 12. In view of the above, the civil revision is allowed. The defendant shall deposit a cost of Rs.5000/- in Court which shall be given to the other side.