MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The above mentioned suit has been filed by the plaintiff for partition and case is pending adjudication in this court. The defendant needs to amend the written statement as there are some typographical errors in the same. The present application has been filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure being IA No.4552/2009 and IA No.4553/2009 for taking the additional documents on record.

2. The brief facts as per the plaint are that the property situated at No.3 Barapulia Road, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi admeasuring about 4321 sq.yds. (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was sold to the plaintiff and the defendant each having 50% share by virtue of a sale deed dated 22nd August 1994 which was executed by the erstwhile owner Late Mr.s. Sushila Jarmani Dass. The said sale deed was duly registered on 29th September 1994 and numbered as Document No. 7059, Additional Book No. 1 Volume No. 8423 on pages 145 to 156. The total consideration paid was 3,83,67,429/- (rupees three crores eighty three lacs sixty seven thousand four hundred and twenty nine). The said property was purchased so that it can be developed as a Joint Venture between the defendant and the plaintiff. But, due to some subsequent events, the property could not be developed by the parties and it was abandoned.

3. The defendant has contested the said suit by filing written statement. However, the defendant wants to amend the written statement and hence, has moved an application bearing IA No.4552/2009.

4. Firstly the defendant states that the date of agreement typed in the written statement, in paragraph No. 4 (c) in reply to merits, is 26th December 1996 whereas the correct date should read 12th December, 1996.

5. Secondly, the defendant has to amend paragraph no. 4 (e) (ii) (E) in reply to merits, which was wrongly typed. The word “unencumbered” has not been typed in place of the word “ready”. which refers to the properties shown to the plaintiff in lieu of the suit property and document dated 17th March 2006 filed alongwith the written statement supports the contention of the defendant.

6. Paragraph 4 (i) of the reply on merits needs to be changed. In the reply to the merits it was mentioned in the compromise recorded as “in suit no. 1227 of 1993 on April 8, 2002 money was deposited to Ishan Housing Projects Ltd.” but instead the money was deposited by the defendant herein. The defendant states that the same is also for the record of this Court. Defendant states that as per direction of this Court, Registrar General of this Court was directed to nominate an officer to execute the sale deed but, as a matter of fact, it was not for execution of the sale deed but for the deed of relinquishment and defendant also wants this fact to be a matter of record for this Court.

7. Paragraph 4 (o) in the reply of merits also needs an amendment. The defendant states that the said paragraph is in present tense. It is written in the said reply that “Ishan Housing Projects is and has kept under its control following ready properties to convey title to the plaintiff”. It was being referred to the time and year of institution of the suit at Calcutta. The defendant states that while filing the written statement these properties mentioned in this paragraph were not available to the defendant. Thus, the defendant wishes to make grammatical corrections. The defendant further states that the properties mentioned as “ready properties” are to be read as “unencumbered ready property” the same being a typing error. No other detail is added apart from the details of the property.

8. Defendant states that paragraph 4 (p) also needs an amendment. According to the defendant, the properties shown to the plaintiff were already in the knowledge of the plaintiff and the period has already lapsed, thus the word “are” and “is” are to be changed to “were” and “was” respectively.

9. Further, the defendant wishes to add another paragraph