JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a revision application by Pannalal defendant No. 3, against an order of the Civil Judge, Bikaner, holding that the additional written statement filed by him should have been confined to the amended portion of the plaint only.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they let out a shop to Nemichand, defendant No. 1, and that the latter sub-let it to his nephews defendant No. 2 and 3, who are now carrying on business in the shop. The suit was instituted in 1965 for the ejectment of all the 3 defendants from the shop.

3. Defendants No. 2 and 3 contested the suit on the ground that Nemichand was still carrying on business in the shop and he had not parted with possession in their favour, The plaintiffs examined an Inspector of the Food Department, who stated that a shop was being run in the premises in suit under the name and style of Kedarnath Pannalal. Kedarnath and Pannalal, defendants No. 2 and 3 then applied for an amendment of the written statement so as to put forward the case that Nemi Chand surrendered the tenancy in 1957 and the shop was let out to them as tenants in chief on the same terms on which Nemichand was holding it. This amendment was disallowed by the trial court. When the case was at the stage of arguments the plaintiffs applied for amendment of para 5 of the plaint. It was allowed. In the original paragraph it was mentioned that the notice terminating the tenancy was issued under sec. 111 (h) of the Transfer of Property Act. In the amended para 5 it is alleged that it was terminated under cls.(g) and (h) of sec. 1ll of the Transfer of Property Act.

4. The only objection raised on behalf of the defendants to the amendment was that they wanted some costs to be awarded to them. The court awarded Rs. 10/-as costs for the amendment and passed an order on 14-10-68 asking the defendants to file an amended written statement on 11-11-68. When the amended written statement was filed in which some new pleas were taken the plaintiffs objected to it and the trial court held following the decision in Dittu Ram vs. Amar Chand (1) that the additional written statement should be confined to the amended portion of the plaint only.

5. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that the order of the trial court is erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following two decisions of the Punjab High Court—Girdharilal vs. Krishan Datt (2). New Bank of India vs. Smt. Raj Rani (3). On behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on Ditturam vs. Amarchand (1) and Ganba Paiku vs. Ganpatrao (4).

6. In Girdharilal vs. Krishan Datt (2) the plaint was amended in the trial court and an amended written statement was filed following the amendment of the plaint. No objection was taken to this written statement in the trial court. The appellate court however rejected the additional pleas taken in the amended written statement. The amendment of the plaint in that case was however of such a nature that it could not be said that the amended written statement went beyond what was needed as reply to the amended plaint. The observations made in this case that there is no rule of law to restrict the defendant when he is called upon to file a written statement to an amended plaint to contest the plaintiffs claim to any particular pleas is thus obiter.

7. In New Bank of India vs. Smt. Raj Rani (3) the suit was brought for a mandatory injunction directing the Bank to deliver possession of a fixed deposit receipt. During the pendency of the suit, according to the plaintiff, the fixed deposit receipt had natured and the plaint was amended so as to ask for an alternative relief in the shape of the amount due on the fixed deposit receipt. An amended written statement was filed by the Bank in which the date of making the fixed deposited receipt was different from that in the original written statement. It was explained on behalf of the Bank that one of its officers had colluded with the plaintiff and had committed fraud in respect of the fixed d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document