ORDER :- This application in revision by Dittu Ram is directed against an order of Shri T.C. Rewal, the then Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu. 2. The respondent had filed a suit for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership against the petitioner. Subsequent to the filing of the written statement, leave to amend the plaint was granted and an amended plaint was put in on 30-5-1960 and the petitioner was required to file a written-statement by 20-6-1960. A replication was filed by the respondent and an objection was raised that the petitioner had in the supplementary written-statement put forward pleas which were inconsistent with some of the pleas put forward in the written statement initially filed and were foreign to the fresh matter introduced on amendment of the plaint. That objection prevailed with the learned trial Court and by the order sought to be revised the new and inconsistent pleas raised by the petitioner were directed to be ignored.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the application in revision does not lie. I, however, do not propose to go into that objection as the application in revision does not appear to have merits.

4. The short question that arises for decision is as to when after the filing of the written-statement a plaint is amended it is within the rights of the defendant to raise picas inconsistent wit a those which had been raised in the earlier written-statement without obtaining permission of the Court for the purpose. There is no specific provision in the Code governing the aforesaid question and it has therefore to be decided in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience deriving assistance from the other provisions contained therein.

5. Order 6, Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code enjoins that no pleading shall, except by way on amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same. It would thus appear that if leave to amend the plaint had not been accorded to the plaintiff-respondent it would not have been open to the petitioner to amend the written-statement without permission of the Court.

When fresh matter is introduced in the plaint as originally filed the only right which a defendant can justly claim is that an opportunity be afforded to him to put forward his pleas with regard to the fresh matter introduced. It would be a violation of the principles of pleadings and in particular of Order 6, Rule 7 of the Civil P.C. if on amendment of the plaint a defendant is allowed to put forward pleas which are not in answer to the fresh matter introduced by amendment of the plaint and are inconsistent with the pleas previously put forward.

6. Strictly speaking, on amendment of the plaint a defendant should be allowed an opportunity to file additional written-statement in answer to the amended portion of the plaint only. But even if he is required to file a written-statement in answer to the amended plaint he cannot have a right to give a go-by to the pleas raised by him in the former written-statement unless it be necessary to do so in answer to the fresh matter introduced on the amendment of the plaint.

The written-statement should contain the reply to the new matter introduced on amendment of the plaint and the pleas which had been raised previously in answer to the unamended portion of the plaint. In other words, the amendment of the plaint does not give rise to a licence to the defendant to travel beyond the scope of the amended portion of the plaint and wriggle out of the defence previously set up in answer to the unamended portion of the plaint.

7. Mr. Justice Kapur (now a Judge of the Supreme Court) had observed in Watkins Mayor and Co. Jullundur City v. Registrar of Trade Marks. Bombay, 54 Pun LR 176 : (AIR 1952 Punj 266) :

"However negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document