The legal right accrues to the opposite party to file a fresh written statement wherein new objections can be taken in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or any statutory bar or special order of the Court at the time of allowing the amendment.

S.S.Grewal, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Sub-Judge IIIrd Class, Patiala dated 29th October, 1991 whereby defendant was not permitted to raise new or inconsistant or additional pleas in the amended written statement.

2. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that on the strength of the authority of this Court in Prem Singh v. Harpal Kaur, (1991-1) 99 P. L. R. 209, wherein relying on another authority of this Court Jagdish Parshad v. Dhensi Ram (deceased), (1977) 79 P. L. R. 670, it was observed that once an amended plaint is filed, a legal right accrues to the opposite party to file a fresh written statement wherein new objections can be taken in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or any statutory bar or special order of the Court at the time of allowing the amendment,

4. In the instant case, no reference whatsoever has been made either to any exceptional circumstance or any statutory bar or the order of the trial Court, at the time of allowing the amendment which can create any legal bar for the defendant from taking new and inconsistant pleas while filing the written statement to the amended plaint.

5. On behalf of the defendant, it has been submitted that the amendment in the plaint was allowed only about description of the suit property by way of incorporating correct khasra numbers and as such it was not open to the defendant to raise new and inconsistant pleas in the written statement filed concerning the amended plaint. It was further submitted that by taking new and inconsistant pleas in the written statement not only an enitrely new case has been introduced but the admission already made by the defendant in his earlier written statement has been changed and the valuable right already accrued to the plaintiff had been effected adversely.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that there would be no legal bar to withdraw the admission made by the defendant in the earlier written statement when he got the opportunity to file written statement to the amended plaint. However, the learned trial Court will consider the change/ withdrawal of admissions made in the written statement to the amended plaint at the appropriate stage while deciding the suit or while dealing with the evidence produced by the parties The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be a legal order as the same suffers from error of jurisdiction. The defendent had been debarred from raising certain pleas in the written statement which he is legally entitled to raise. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The written statement to the amended plaint shall also be considered by the trial Court, as having been properly filed. However, it is clarified that nothing herein observed for the disposal of this petition shall in any way be construed to effect the rights of the parties on merits. This petition is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given Dasti.