The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of obtaining leave from the court before making amendments to the pleadings, and the limitations on the scope of amendments to the written statement. The judgment also clarifies the rights of legal representatives of deceased defendants to file additional written statements under Order 22 Rule 4.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

The instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.3.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Solan, District Solan, rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff’) under Section 151 read with Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC’) praying therein for rejection of amended written statement filed by the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants’).

2. Briefly stated the facts, as emerged from the record, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 7, whereas defendant No.8 was arrayed as proforma defendant. During the course of trial, plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for carrying out amendment in the plaint since there was a clerical/mathematical error in the original plaint filed by the plaintiff. By way of amendment, plaintiff proposed to make change in para-2 of the plaint, whereby plaintiff intended to substitute dated 14.12.1976 by 14.12.1978. Plaintiff in application claimed that inadvertently date of agreement was mentioned as 14.12.1976, whereas agreement between the parties was entered into on 14.12.1978. Aforesaid application was resisted by the defendants, but fact remains that learned trial Court below allowed the aforesaid amendment. Accordingly, plaintiff filed amended plaint (Annexure P-2).

3. At this stage, it may be noticed that predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 7; namely Shri Sukh Ram, had already filed written statement to the un-amended plaint i.e. Annexure P-3. But since he expired during the pendency of the suit, his legal representatives (for short 'LRs’) were brought on record and arrayed as defendants No.1 to 7. Consequent upon filing of amended plaint by plaintiff, LRs of deceased defendant No.1 i.e. 1 (a) to 1 (g) filed written statement. Plaintiff, being aggrieved with filing of amended written statement by the LRs of deceased defendant No.1, filed an application under Section 151 read with Order 8 Rule 9 CPC praying therein for rejection of written statement filed by the defendants as same was beyond the scope of amendment.

4. Learned trial Court vide order dated 27.3.2014 (Annexure P-8), rejected the application preferred on behalf of the plaintiff (for short 'impugned order’). Learned trial Court, while dismissing the application, came to the conclusion that since defendant No.2 had not filed any written statement before settlement of issues, written statement filed by him is liable to be rejected and he cannot take undue advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint. But as far as amended written statement filed by defendants No.1 (a) to (g) is concerned, learned Court below came to the conclusion that defendant No.1 is free to take many pleas, whatsoever, of his choice and his written statement cannot be confined to amendment made in the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Learned Court below further concluded that perusal of the written statements filed by defendant nowhere suggests that defendant No.1 has withdrawn any statement made in his earlier statement but he has taken some additional plea in the amended written statement for which he is entitled. In this regard learned trial Court placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in V.K.N. Pillai vs. P.Pillai AIR 2005 SC 614, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that Courts should be more generous in allowing amendment of written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event.

5. Plaintiff, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned order dated 27.03.2014, passed by the learned trial Court, approached this Court by way of instant petition praying therein for quashing and setting aside of the same.

6. Mr. Bhupinder Gu