The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the plaintiff amends the plaint, the defendant is entitled to file an additional written statement taking all the pleas available which are not inconsistent with the previous pleas.

ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) - Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Dhuri whereby the defendant was directed to file the additional written statement confining to the amended plaint.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed suit for declaration seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 are the co-owners and in joint possession of the suit property to the extent of half share. Defendant-petitioner has filed written statement against the plaint. Thereafter, plaintiff has moved an application seeking amendment in the plaint which was allowed by learned trial Court vide order dated 26.10.2009 permitting the defendant-petitioner to file additional written statement. Thereafter, defendant-petitioner filed written statement taking all the available pleas. Plaintiffs-respondents moved an application before the learned trial Court saying defendants No. 1 to 4 can not file additional written statement taking new/additional pleas. Application moved by the plaintiff was allowed by the impugned order.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The question involved in the present case is As to whether defendant is entitled to file additional written statement taking all the additional and new pleas available which were not taken in the original written statement after the amendment in the plaint?

5. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sheo Ram vs. Madhu Ram and others, reported in 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 757 (P&H) has argued that defendant has every right to file additional written statement after amendment in the plaint taking all the pleas available to the defendant although not taken previously in the main written statement.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs (respondents herein) has vehemently argued that in view of Order 6 Rule 7 and Order 8 Rule 9 CPC no subsequent pleading can be allowed to be filed after the filing of written statement, without leave of the Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs (respondents herein) further argued that after the amendment in the plaint additional written statement should be confined to the amended portion of the plaint and defendant can not be permitted to take additional pleas/defences which were not originally taken in the main written statement.

7. Order 6 Rule 7 and Order 8 and Rule 9 reads as under:-

7. Departure.-No pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same.

9. Subsequent pleadings.-No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time required a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same.

From the perusal of Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, in the opinion of this Court no new pleading can be raised which are inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party. This Court is of the view if plaintiffs carries out the amendment in the plaint then defendant is entitled to file additional written statement taking all the pleas available which are not inconsistent to the previous pleas taken by the defendant.

9 The view of this Court is fortified by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sheo Ram's case (supra). Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Sheo Ram's case (supra) in paragraph No. 9 has observed as under:-

9. In Jia Lal and another v. Savitri Devi and another 1995(1) PLR 742 this Court has held that if the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint, the defendant has a corresponding right to file the amended written s