Rohtash vs Jai Veer

Alka Sarin, J

The present revision petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 24.10.2019 whereby the trial Court had dismissed the

application for amendment filed by the defendant-petitioner to his written statement.

In brief, the facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell

dated 03.05.2016 executed by the defendant-petitioner for a consideration of Rs.14,50,000/- per acre. In the written statement filed by the defendant-

petitioner the stand taken, inter alia, was that the plaintiff-respondent used to obtain signatures of the defendant-petitioner on blank and printed papers

and had also obtained the blank signed stamp papers by stating that he is in need of the same for submitting to the income tax authorities regarding

receipt of the amount by the defendant-petitioner from the plaintiff-respondent. It was also stated in the written statement that the defendant-petitioner

was a small farmer and the plaintiff -respondent was running the business of purchasing agricultural produce from small farmers and advancing

money to them fro m time to time on demand. It was averred in the written statement that the defendant-petitioner used to sell the agricultural produce

to the plaintiff-respondent and used to take money in advance as per his needs and for the said purpose the plaintiff-respondent used to obtain

signatures of the defendant-petitioner on blank papers and also often on blank stamp-papers. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-petitioner

filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amendment of written statement stating therein that the

defendant-petitioner came to know that on 22.02.2013, 12.02.2014 and 10.02.2015, the plaintiff-respondent in collusion with the alleged three

witnesses of the agreement to sell had also prepared three other agreements in his favour which were entered in the register of the alleged scribe

Raja Ram, deed writer. It was further averred in the application that these three agreements, though entered in the register of the scribe Raja Ram,

had not been enforced by the plaintiff-respondent by filing any suit for specific performance and therefore, the defendant-petitioner wanted to amend

the written statement by adding para 3-A after para-3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement. The application was dismissed by the trial

Court. Aggrieved by the said order dated 24.10.2019 the defendant-petitioner has filed the present revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that it was only during the pendency of the suit that it came to the

knowledge of the defendant-petitioner that there were three other agreements which were entered in the register of the scribe Raja Ram, the deed

writer, which were never enforced by the plaintiff-respondent by filing suit for specific performance and, therefore, the necessity arose to carry out

the proposed amendment in the written statement.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has contended that there was no ground for allowing the amendment at this stage and that

none of the conditions laid down in Order 6, Rule 17 CPC were fulfilled in the present case. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the

plaintiff-respondent that once trial had commenced there was no ground for permitting amendment of the written statement. He also argued that the

defendant-petitioner had failed to show due diligence and , in the absence of being able to show due diligence, the application for amendment could not

be allowed.

In the present case a specific plea had been raised in the written statement qua the fact that the defendant-petitioner was a small farmer and he used

to not only sell his produce to the plaintiff-respondent but also used to take money from him from time to time and, as a security for repayment of that

money, the plaintiff-respondent used to obtain the signatures of the defendant -petitioner on blank and printed papers. Further, on asking of the Court

the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner also produced the issues which had been framed in the present case. Issue No.5 is â€" “Whether

the suit of plaintiff is false, frivolous and is barred on baseless grounds ? OPDâ€​

It may be seen that in the present case it is not that the defendant-petitioner is trying to set up a new case by way of the proposed amendment. By

way of the proposed amendment, para 3-A which is to be added after para-3 of the preliminary objections is only to substantiate the stand already

taken by the defendant-petitioner in his written statement. In view thereof, I am of the considered view that the amendment ought to be allowed. The

defendant-petitioner has moved the application on the ground that it was only subsequently that he came to know of the three additional agreements,

which had been entered into the register of the scribe Raja Ram. All these agreements, being referred to, are prior in time than the agreement to sell

dated 03.05.2016 on the basis of which the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-petitioner, by way of the present

amendment, only wants to substantiate his plea that earlier also three agreements had been prepared, which were entered in the register of the same

scribe and were prior in time and had never been enforced by the plaintiff-respondent by way of filing suit for specific performance. That being so, I

deem it just and appropriate, in order to do complete justice between the parties, to allow the amendment application. The amendment application is,

hence, allowed subject to payment of `.10,000/- as costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

The present revision is, hence, allowed in the aforesaid terms.