The main legal point established in the judgment is that a defendant cannot amend the written statement to raise new pleas after a previous suit has been decreed, especially when no new facts justify the amendment.

A.L.Bahri, J.

1. This petition is decided at the motion stage.

2. This Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff challenging order of the District Judge, Sirsa dated November 10, 1990 allowing application filed under O 6 R. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement Sled by the State of Haryana, who was appellant before the District Judge.

3. Dr. Karan Singh was in service of State of Haryana. He submitted his resignation in July 1982. The State of Haryana rejected the same in December, 1982. Subsequently on April 11, 1983 the State of Haryana passed an order accepting the resignation. This led Dr. Karan Singh to file a suit challenging this order. The said suit was decreed in 1985, the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree failed in 1986 and subsequently Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court on November 27, 1986. The State of Haryana passed an order on January 9, 1987 accepting the resignation of Dr. Karan Singh w.e.f. April 11, 1983. This order was again challenged by Dr. Karan Singh in the suit which was decreed by the trial Court on July 25, 1989. The State of Haryana filed appeal before the District Judge and during pendency of the same application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed intar alia to take up a plea that the defendant had no knowledge of private practice of Dr. Karan Singh for tie period from 1983 on wards. This amendment was allowed by, the District Judge vide the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the District Judge was in error m allowing the application particularly for the period which was covered by the previous suit. The decree passed between the parties having become final In support of this Contention reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Karnail Singh v. Pal Singh., (1989-2)96 P. L. R. 16.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties, I find force in this contention. When the previous suit was decreed, it resulted in certain consequences such as continuity of service of Dr. Karan Singh and his entitlement to all emoluments for the period he was kept cut of service. For the period prior to the filing of the previous suit the defendant State of Haryana was at liberty to raise any plea to deny the release of emoluments such as that Dr. Karan Singh was in private practice somewhere. That right cannot be denied now in the subsequent suit. The same argument would be applicable with respect on the period when finally the decree was passed in the previous suit by the final Court i e the High Court in Regular Second Appeal on November 27, 1985. It was open to State of Haryana to press this aspect of the matter in the Regular Second Appeal.

6. The farther question for consideration is as to whether far the period after November, 1986 the defendant-State of Haryana should be allowed to amend the written statement. The present suit was tiled in 1988 which was decreed in 1989. No explanation has been put forward as to why such a plea could not be taken up earlier. There was no question of any fresh facts coming into the knowledge of the defendant State of Haryana which could entitle the defendant to ask for amendment of the written statement. It could not be defied, however, that such a question is to be decided keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and in the present case it was not the appropriate stage to allow amendment.

7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Revision Petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order is set aside The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge on April 8, 199l. The District Judge to dispose of the appeal according to law.