Narain Auto Agency and Another vs Sat Kartar Engineering Works

A.L. Bahri, J.—The trial Court vide order dated May 7, 1988 dismissed application filed by the defendant for amendment of the written statement. The defendant has come up in revision against the said order.

The plaintiff, M/s. Sat Kartar Engineering Works filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 42,000/- against Narain Auto Agency and its partner Raj Inder Pal Singh defendants, towards arrears of lent. As per allegations of the plaintiff the tenancy started from July 1, 1980 and the rent was agreed at Rs 1,500/- per mensem. The suit was filed on June 15, 1987 for recovery of Rs. 42,000/- towards arrears of rent, as earlier rent had been received.

In the written statement filed by the defendants in para 3, the tenancy and rate of rent was specifically admitted. However, subsequently when an application for amendment of the written statement was filed, this plea was sought to be amended. It was stated that the tenancy started initially from July 1, 1980 when the rent was fixed at Rs. 500/ per mensem. It was in February 1981 when the entire building was completed the rent was increased to Rs. 1,500/-. In this manner the admission which was made in the previous written statement was sought to be withdrawn. According to the defendants this happened on account of negligence of the counsel in crafting the written statement.

After hearing counsel for the parties I find that it was futile exercise to get the written statement amended as the same is not going to determine the dispute between the parties. When the suit was filed on June 15, 1987 and the plaintiff''s alleged in the suit that the possession was delivered to him on November 13, 1986 and the arrears of rent, therefore, are being claimed for the period ending November 13, 1986. The total amount claimed towards arrears is Rs. 42,000/- and at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per month it would constitute rent for 28 months prior to November 13, 1986. Even assuming for the sake of argument that rent for the period July 1, 1980 to February 28, 1981 was less then Rs. 1,500/ per month that is not going to make change on the merits of the case.

The trial Court came to the conclusion and rightly so that the defendant could not be permitted to withdraw his admission as the same was going to affect the case of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court in Chand Singh Vs. Balbir Singh, . However, on going through the facts of this case. I find that the ratio of the decision cannot be applied to the facts of the case in hand. It was the case put up there that somebody impersonated for the defendant who in the written statement admitted the claim and when the defendant himself came forward to contest the case, the amendment was allowed which was being challenged in the High Court. Such is not the case in hand. There is no case put up that the written statement filed in the present case was not actually filed by the defendant. Such a matter came up before this Court in Ishwar Singh and Ors. v. Sher Singh (1988) 94 P.L.R. 390 it was held that by amendment defendant could not be allowed to withdraw an admission already made earlier. In Balwant Singh v. Dharam Singh 1985 P.L.J. 432 it was held that the party could not be allowed to set up absolutely a different case by way of amendment of the plea. Taking into consideration the facts of the case in hand I am of the view that the trial Court rightly rejected the application for amendment of the written statement whereby admission was sought to be withdrawn without any cogent reason. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.