Tarlok Singh vs Parsinno

A.L. Bahri, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated December 23, 1988, passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Batala, rejecting application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the defendants for amendment of the written statement.

In the written statement, originally, para 3, as mentioned, reads as under :--

"That para No. 3 is wrong and is strongly denied. The deceased Shri Sadhu Singh has been given shamlat land which falls outside Lal Lakir, by the Gram Panchayat Ghoman, Tehsil Batala, on the basis of his belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, about 15/18 years back, on which the deceased Shri Sadhu Singh raised construction of two rooms with the help of the defendants and started living together as joint family. The defendants had already been given the possession of the house by the deceased Shri Sadhu Singh during his life time, and therefore, it could not be said that the defendants illegally (possessed it) That the deceased Shri Sadhu Singh made a Will, bequea thing his house comprising two rooms in favour of the defendant Mohinder Singh on dated 25-2-1983 at his house at village Ghoman, Tehsil Batala in the presence of some witnesses. The Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh having transferred his interest in house which devolved upon the defendant Mohinder Singh by intestate succession vide Will Deed made on 25-2-1983. The deceased Shri Sadhu Singh died on 5-8-1987 at village Ghoman-Tehsil Batala and after the death of Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh, on 5-8-1987 the defendant Mohinder Singh has succeeded to and inherited the house in the suit The defendant has set up his claim of being the real owner of the house on the basis of the Will, annexed with the written statement, made by the Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh. The Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh had done so right in the beginning to bequeath his house in favour of defendant Shri Mohinder Singh. The Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh used to reside with the defendant Mahinder Singh and his family took care of the Testator deceased Shri Sadhu Singh and the said plaintiff resided at far off places, never met him during his life time Neither plaintiff attended the funeral ceremony of the deceased Sadhu Singh. Plaintiff never inclined nor were she in a position to take care of the Testator deceased Sadhu Singh. The Testator resided with defendant Mohinder Singh even much prior to 25-2-1983 when the Will was executed. The remaining two rooms have been constructed by the defendants themselves after the death of said Sadhu Singh."

In the application for amendment sought to be made in this para, it was stated that toe words "by intestate succession" have been written inadvertently and by mere type mistake. It is further mentioned that after the words "Mohinder Singh" and before the words "vide Will" the words "by intestate succession" may be allowed to be deleted and in its place words "transferred all rights of house in question to defendants" be inserted. The other amendment was sought in para 5 of the written statement, which reads as under :--

"That para No. 5 is wrong and denied. The plaintiff has got no cause of action. The defendants are in continuous, consistent and integral possession even during the life time of the Testator deceased Sadhu Singh, about 15/18 years back. The executed Will deed dated 25-2-1983, has come into operation on 5-8-1983. The Testator Shri Sadhu Singh (deceased) having his interest transferred in the house, which devolved upon defendant Shri Mohinder Singh by intestate succession Will Deed made on 25-2-1983. The question does not arise that defendants are in illegal possession and the jurisdiction of the court is barred. This Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate upon the matter."

In this para also the words "by intestate succession" were inadvertently written and similarly words "transferred all rights of house in question to the defendants" are to be added.

In the two paragraphs in the written statement as originally filed, are read as a whole, it is abundantly clear that the stand of the defendants was based on a Will executed by Sadhu Singh in favour of Mohinder Singh defendant which is dated February 25, 1983 and it was a typing mistake that the words "by intestate succession" were mention in the two paragraphs which words were to be deleted.

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC were not strictly complied with by the defendants by making an application for amendment, in as far as no amended written statement or amended paragraphs of the written statement were submitted. On this technicality the prayer for amendment cannot be denied if otherwise the defendants are entitled to get the mistake rectified by amendment In both the paragraphs the words "by intestate succession" which were mention by mistake were to be deleted so that the pleadings could be intelligently understood, there being a specific plea based on a Will executed by Sadhu Singh in favour of the defendant.

In both the paragraphs it is stated that by the aforesaid Will there was transfer of the house in favour of Mohinder Singh defendant and now along with the words "transfer" the defendant also wants to add words "transferred all rights of house in question to the defendant." This amendment again is not going to affect in any way the rights of the plaintiff Rather it only clarifies the plea already taken. In substance, as already stated above the defendants want to contest the suit on the basis of a Will executed by Sadhu Singh in favour of Mohinder Singh defendant. This is a case where the defendants wanted to get a typographical mistake rectified by amendment of the written statement. No fresh plea is being introduced that the plaintiff could be taken by surprise or any of his vested rights where to be jeopardised. Only on the ground that technicalities of the provisions of CPC were not strictly complied with, by not filing amended written statement along with the application, the same could not be dismissed. Provisions in the CPC are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to be treated as hindrance in the administration of justice. The opposite party can suitably be compensated by way of costs.

For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is allowed. The proposed amendment in the written statement is permitted subject to payment of Rs. 700/- as costs The costs would be paid in the trial Court on the date to be fixed by the trial Court. The respondent may appear in the trial, Court on July 30, 1990.