IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the discretion to allow amendments to pleadings if it determines that no prejudice would be caused to either party and the amendments are emerging from the contents of the existing pleadings.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A.14706/2022 (under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of Defendant No.2 for Amendment of Written Statement)

1. An application has been filed on behalf of defendant No.2 for amendment of the Written Statement.

2. It is submitted in the application that defendant No.2 on account of his busy schedule as a professional Doctor, he was unable to consult his family lawyer who has now pointed out certain errors in the Written Statement, which need to be corrected.

3. It is submitted that the defendant intends to make an amendment in paragraph 1 of the Preliminary Objections to claim that he i.e. defendant No.2 has been unnecessarily made a party to the suit with no legal relief claimed against him except Prayer Clause III, wherein an alternative prayer has been made against him. The defendant No.2 wants to incorporate the plea of estoppel to assert that as the Consent Decree had been passed by this Court, it cannot be revoked after the lapse of seven years. Similar amendments are sought to be made in paragraph No.2, 3 and 4 of the Preliminary Objections to incorporate the details and the proceedings which took place prior to the bidding which happened in the Civil Suit CS(OS)1560/2006.

4. In paragraph 1 of the Written Statement `On Merits', it is again sought to be claimed that he is not a necessary party to the present suit. Similar amendments are sought in paragraph No. 5 and 8 of the Written Statement. He further wants to assert in response to paragraph 18-B, that `the contents are denied for want of knowledge'. Likewise, in paragraph 22, similar objections about the defendant not been related to the dispute in hand and suit being barred by estoppel is sought to be taken. Similar amendments are sought to be taken in paragraph 23, 25 and 26 of the Written Statement.

5. The application is opposed by defendant No.1 who in its Reply has not denied the factum of earlier litigation which took place in CS(OS)1560/2006 in respect of the suit property, but is claiming that defendant no.2 is now adopting an evasive stand in respect of the earlier submissions made in respect of the proceedings in the earlier suit. He has no objection to the amendment in paragraph No. 4 of the Preliminary Objections. The amendment application filed on behalf of defendant No.2 is, opposed on other aspects.

6. No formal reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the learned counsel had no objection to the proposed amendments sought to be made by defendant No.2 in the Written Statement.

7. Submissions heard.

8. Essentially, the amendments sought to be made are to incorporate facts in respect of the earlier litigation which took place in CS(OS)1560/2006 and also to take a plea that no relief has been claimed against defendant No.2 who has been unnecessarily dragged in this litigation. Also, legal plea is sought to be taken that the present suit is barred by estoppel.

9. The case is still at the initial stage wherein the issues are yet to be framed. No prejudice would be caused to either party if the proposed amendments are allowed, which are essentially emerging from the contents of the Written Statement already filed on behalf of defendant No.2. Considering the nature of the amendments sought to be made by the defendant No.2 the amendment application is allowed.

CS(OS) 331/2017

10. Defendant No.2 to file amended Written Statement within thirty days, failing which the same shall not be taken on record. The plaintiff shall file the replication within fifteen days of receiving the amended Written Statement with further directions that no further extension of time on any ground shall be given.

11. List before learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 06.05.2024.