9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g its amendment. We do not find any reason as to why amendment of the written statement introducing an additional plea of limitation could not be allowed. The next question is that if such amendment is allowed, certain admissions made would be allowed to be taken away which are not permissible in law. We have already examined the statements made in the written statement as well as the amendment of the written statement. After going through the written statement and the application for amendment of the written statement in depth, we do not find any such admission of the Appellants which was sought to be withdrawn by way of amending the written statement. In our view, the facts stated in the application for amendment were in fact an elaboration of the defence case. Accordingly, we are of the view that the High Court as well as the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement on the ground that in the event such amendment was allowed, it would take away some admissions made by the Defendants/Appellants in their written statement. That apart, in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.[ 2001 (9) TMI 1144 - SUPREME COURT] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs. We are of the view that the High Court as well as the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of written statement. Accordingly, the orders of the High Court and the trial court are set aside, the application for amendment of written statement is allowed. The Defendants/Appellants are directed to file an amended written statement within a period of one month from the date of production of this order before the trial court to dispose of the suit within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to it. The appeals are allowed. There will he no order as to costs. Appeals allowed. - AR. Lakshmanan and Tarun Chatterjee. For the Appellant: Nidesh Gupta and S. Jenani, Advs. For the Respondents: O.P. Aggarwal, Sudama Ojha, Maya Rao and Anurag Kumar, Advs . JUDGMENT Tarun Chatterjee, J. 1. Leave granted. An order rejecting an application for amendment of a written statement passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahar, Punjab and Haryana and affirmed by a learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is now under challenge before this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition under A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent that the amendment sought for was in fact an elaboration of the case made out in the written statement. The High Court as well as the Trial Court rejected the application for amendment of the written statement. 4. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement, this Special Leave Petition has been filed which, on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in detail on the question whether the amendment sought for in the written statement, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, ought to have been allowed or not. 6. Before we take up this question for our decision, we must consider some of the principles to be governed for allowing an amendment of the pleadings. 7. It is well settled by various decisions of this Court as well as the High Courts in India that Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of the Privy Council in Ma Shw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. So far as proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, we shall deal with it later. 9. Keeping these principles in our mind, let us now consider whether the High Court as well as the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the Appellants. 10. A bare perusal of the order rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement indicates that while rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement, the High Court as well as the trial court based their decisions mainly on three grounds. The first ground was that since the Appellants had made certain admissions in the written statement, its amendment cannot be allowed permitting the Appellants to withdraw their admission made in the same. Secondly, the question of limitation cannot be allowed to be raised by way of an amendment of the written statement and lastly inconsistent pleas in the written statement cannot also be allowed to be raised by seeking its amendment. 11. So far as the second ground for rejection of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was only pointed out in the application for amendment that after the death of their parents. the suit property was mutated in the joint names of the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 and the Defendants in equal shares. Therefore, the question whether certain admissions made in the written statement were sought to be withdrawn is concerned, we find, as noted herein earlier, there was no admission in the written statement from which it could be said that by filing an application for amendment of the written statement, the Appellants had sought to withdraw such admission. It is true in the original written statement, a statement has been made that it is the Defendant No. 1/Appellant No. 1 is the owner and in continuous possession of the suit property but in our view, the powers of the Court are wide enough to permit amendment of the written statement by incorporating an alternative plea of ownership in the application for amendment of the written statement. That apart, in our view, the facts stated in the application for amendment were in fact an elaboration of the defence case. Accordingly, we are of the view that the High Court as well as the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of written statement, the courts are inclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment of the written statement than of plaint and question of prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigour in the former than in the latter case. 15. This being the position, we are therefore of the view that inconsistent plea can be raised by Defendants in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in the case of plaint, in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ladha Ram and Co. (1976) 4 SCC 320, this principle has been enunciated by this Court in which it has been clearly laid down that inconsistent or alternative pleas can be made in the written statement. Accordingly, the High Court and the Trial Court had gone wrong in holding that Defendants/Appellants are not allowed to take inconsistent pleas in their defence. 16. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the Suit has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
