Defendant may introduce relevant facts in amended pleadings without violating prior statements or provisions, allowing trial progression without striking out.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

I.A. 7866/2019 [under Order VI Rule 7, Order VI Rule 16 read with Section 151 of CPC for striking out the pleading (written statement) and to return the written statement filed by the defendant]

1. This application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs with prayer for returning back the written statement filed by the defendant No.3 and calling upon the defendant No.3 to file fresh written statement.

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the present suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction initially before ld. District Judge, Delhi. The defendants herein had filed their respective written statements. Subsequently vide order dated 17.05.2003, ld. ADJ had framed issues, including Preliminary Issue no.1 which read as under:

"Whether the present suit is barred by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, as alleged in the written statement? OPD"

3. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2003. Against the said order, the plaintiffs filed appeal before this Court, being RFA (C) No. 621/2003. By order dated 05.03.2012, the appeal filed by the present plaintiffs was allowed by this Court, and the present suit of the plaintiffs was sent back for trial on the remaining issues.

4. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought amendment of the plaint for seeking relief of possession, as the said relief had not been claimed by the plaintiffs initially. The said amendment was allowed and the plaintiffs were allowed to file amended plaint. Since on the relief of possession, the jurisdictional value of the suit crossed Rs.2 crores upon amendment, the present suit was transferred to this Court.

5. Upon filing of the amended plaint, amended written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant No.3. However, as per the plaintiffs, the defendant No.3 has introduced additional and new facts in the amended written statement, which is contrary to law. Thus, it is prayed that the written statement so filed on behalf of defendant No.3 should be returned back. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the amended written statement ought to have been limited only to the amended portion of the plaint. However, an entirely different and new written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.3 is contrary to law.

6. On the other hand ld. Counsel for defendant No.3 has opposed the present application and has contended that the amended reply is in consonance with the earlier reply and that the amended written statement was filed pursuant to the amended plaint filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and thus relevant facts have been brought forth in the amended written statement.

7. I have heard the ld. Counsels for the parties and have also perused the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.3.

8. At the outset, it would be fruitful to refer to provisions of Order VI Rule 7 and Order VI Rule 16 CPC, which are reproduced as below:

"7. Departure.-No pleading shall, except by way of amendment raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same."

......

"16. Striking out pleadings.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading-

(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or

(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or

(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court."

9. With respect to provisions of Order VI Rule 16 CPC, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Razak and Others Vs. Mangesh Raja