Bright Sanitary Corporation vs Paramjit Singh and Company and Another

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Patiala, dated 1.9.1994, allowing an application for amendment of the written statement.

The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,50,334.10 from the defendants on the ground that the defendants purchased sanitary goods from the plaintiff and the amount is due from the defendants. The defendants filed a written statement. Subsequently, the defendants made an application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was allowed by the trial Court in the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.

A perusal of the written statement filed originally and the amendment sought for clearly shows that the defendants are virtually seeking to substitute the written statement filed by them earlier under the garb of the amendment application. It is not a question of amendment of the original written statement but in fact a case of substitution of the written statement totally taking contrary pleas which have been originally taken. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, as originally filed, the defendants stated as follows:-

"Regarding the payment of the bills, it is submitted that the goods which were received by the defendants on different dates, the defendants make the part payment on 2.3.1989 as admitted by the plaintiff. After that on 7.4.1989 the account was finally settled between the plaintiff and defendants and the full and final payment was made against a proper receipt. The difference which has been shown in the plaint is beyond the knowledge of the defendant, the same is wrong and incorrect. He has not mentioned any where in his plaint regarding the goods which were returned by the defendant being sub-standard and defective, after that goods were taken by the defendant against bill dated 8.6.1989 and again after returning the goods which were of sub-standard quality the account was finally settled in Rs. 10,000/- and the amount was paid against a proper receipt and the amount was paid in full and final. In this way nothing is due towards the defendants, the defendants are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as alleged and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the same."

By way of subsisting the written statement the defendants wanted to take the following plea in paragraph 4 :-

That para No. 4 of the plaint is wrong and hence denied, for want of knowledge and the defendants have never purchased any goods from the plaintiff-firm, as such there is no question of balance outstanding against the defendants, there are no signature or writing with the plaintiff firm to that effect. There was no order placed upon the plaintiff-firm by the defendants for the supply of goods. The balance shown in the para are incorrect, without any basis and the defendants are not liable to pay even single penny."

Thus it is clear that in the original written statement the defendants admitted having purchased the goods from the plaintiff-firm and that they returned the, same goods being sub-standard and that they made certain payments and finally the accounts were settled and nothing was due from them but in the substituted written statement which they wanted to take under the guise of amendment of written statement their case is that they never purchased any goods from the plaintiff-firm. This is quite contrary to the stand taken by the defendants in their original written statement. This cannot be said to be an amendment to the written statement. This Court cannot allow substitution of the pleadings. The Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permits only the amendment of the pleadings but not substitution of the pleadings. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court allowing the amendment is without jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Patiala, dated 1.9.1994 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Copy of the order be given dasti on usual terms.