Joga Singh vs Pisorilal and Another

Rampal Singh, J.—Applicant Sardar Joga Singh, aggrieved by the order passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Guna, dated 15-12-1981, has preferred this Civil Revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The non- applicant-plaintiffs Pisorilal and Ram Lubbaya filed a suit for ejectment on 26-9-1977, against the applicant-defendant. Joga Singh, The applicant-defendant, in his written-statement dated 22-4-1978, took the stand that his father Sardar Baghel Singh was the tenant of the plaintiff non-applicant and not be. According to the application of the non-applicant-plaintiff Sardar Baghel Singh was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit. The defendant No. 2 Sardar Baghel Singh, in his written-statement, accepted the contents of the plaint and stated that he was the tenant of the plaintiff non-applicant. On 28-9-1981 by an application (I, A. No. 11) defendant No. 2 Sardar Baghel Singh prayed the Court to pass a decree of ejectment against him and in favour of the non-applicant plaintiff. On the same day, the applicant-defendant No. 1 filed an application (I. A. No. 13) under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC before the trial Court, proposing to amend his written-statement,

In I. A. No. 13, he proposed that the averments alleging defendant No. 2 to be the tenant of the suit land, be deleted. By this amendment he wanted to change the stand earlier taken by him that his father was the tenant of the suit land. He wanted now, to project himself as the tenant of the suit land and thus change his earlier stand entirely.

The trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the proposed amendment, as in its opinion the proposed amendment will not only change the stand taken by the defendant No. 1 but was also mala fide. Defendant No. 1 therefore, preferred this revision petition against the impugned order.

In order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties amendment of the pleading is necessary and that is why the provision of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC should be liberally construed. Yet in exercising the revisional jurisdiction this Court will not ordinarily interfere with the order unless there is an error in exercise of the jurisdiction. Further more an admission made by a party in the pleading may be permitted to be withdrawn or explained away by an amendment. But an amendment introducing entirely different new case and seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from admissions made by a defendant in the written-statement, cannot be permitted, as it may prejudice the other side.

By the proposed amendment, which was after nearly 3 years from the date of the filing of the written-statement, the applicant intends to completely change his original case. It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings. The effect of the substitution of several paras of the written-statement will amount to displacing the plaintiff completely from the admission made in the written-statement. By this proposed amendment applicant-defendant No. 1 wants to change the whole nature of his defence. Besides being belated, the amendment application is wholly wanting in bonafides. Accordingly. such an application would necessitate the reopening of the whole case which was instituted in the year 1977. See Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., and Ramnarayan v. Radhabal 1975 JLJ SN 128 Rest of the grounds were not pressed.

Therefore, the trial Judge has neither acted illegally or committed with material irregularity in rejecting the application for amendment. In consequence, this revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.