Hari Dass vs Parkash Kaur

Sat Pal, J.—This petitions has been directed against the order dated 4.9.1997 passed by Civil Judge (JD), Mansa. By this order the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application filed by defendants under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of this written statement. Notice of this petition was issued.

Mr. Ladhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the present case suit was filed in the year 1989 and thereafter the written statement was filed on 24.7.1993. He submits that at the instance of the defendants, the written statement filed by the defendants was also allowed to be amended and amended written statement was filed on 13.5.1994. He submits that after both the parties have closed their evidence and the case was fixed for arguments the defendants filed the present application for seeking amendment of the written statement. He therefore, contends that the application seeking amendment has been filed at a very belated stage and as such the learned trial Court was not correct in allowing the application filed by the defendants for amendment of the written statement.

I, however, do not find any merit in this petition. Before filing the present application for amendment, the defendants had taken the plea in their written statement that they were the sons of Bugha Dass. In the application seeking amendment, the defendants have set up the plea based on will dated 6.9.1966 which was duly registered and in terms of the said will they have claimed that they have inherited this property being the sons of Bugha Dass. From these facts it is clear that by the amendment the defendants are not changing their case. In fact the definite stand taken by the defendants in the original written statement was that they are owners of the suit property being sons of Bugha Dass and by virtue of the said will again they are claiming the disputed property being sons of Bugha Dass. In view of these facts, I do not find any merit in this petition. The view I have taken finds full support from judgment of the Supreme Court in Akshya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and Anr. 1995(3) R.R.R. 25.

For the reasons recorded herein above, the petition is dismissed.