Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4064
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Joginder Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Mit Mohan Singh Kahlon And Another - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 4126 of 2018, 4125 of 2018
Decided On : 16-10-2018
Ashwani Talwar, Adv., R.P.S. Cheema, Adv., Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal construction of amendment of written statement and the allowance of inconsistent or alternative pleas by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Headnote:
Amendment of Written Statement - Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - 20, 23, M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. M/s Ladha Ram and Co., (1977) AIR SC 680, Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another, (2006) 3 RCR(Civ) 844, M/s Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., (2001) 4 RCR(Civ) 362, Pradeep Singhvi and another Vs. Heero Dhankani and others, (2004) 13 SCC 432, Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar and another, (2009) 3 RCR(Civ) 899 - The court discussed the criteria for allowing or disallowing the amendment of written statement, the permissibility of taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement, and the discretion of the court to permit necessary amendments in the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The court emphasized the liberal construction of amendment of written statement and the allowance of inconsistent or alternative pleas by the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a proforma defendant, sought to amend the written statement in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The trial court had earlier declined the petitioner's application for filing a fresh written statement and subsequently, the application for amendment of the original written statement was also declined.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned orders, allowing the revision petitions subject to the payment of costs to the plaintiffs/respondents.
Issues: The issues revolved around the permissibility of amending the written statement, the discretion of the court in allowing necessary amendments, and the relevance of inconsistent or alternative pleas in the written statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the liberal construction of amendment of written statement and the allowance of inconsistent or alternative pleas by the defendant. It highlighted the discretion of the court to permit necessary amendments in the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders, allowing the revision petitions subject to the payment of costs to the plaintiffs/respondents.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Vide this common order, CR No.4126 of 2018 titled Joginder Kaur Vs. Mit Mohan Singh Kahlon and another and CR No.4125 of 2018 titled Joginder Kaur Vs. Mit Mohan Singh Kahlon and another are being disposed of. Common facts are being noticed
2. In CR No.4126 of 2018, petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Panchkula, whereby application under Section 151 CPC for permission to file fresh written statement was dismissed.
3. In CR No.4125 of 2018, petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.05.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement was dismissed.
4. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that House No.445, Sector 6 Panchkula is owned by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in equal shares and for permanent injunction, restraining defendant No.1, his wife, servants and agents etc. from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Petitioner Joginder Kaur was impleaded as a proforma defendant No.2 being mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1.
5. An application was filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement. The amendment was sought on the ground that before the proceedings in question, on 03.08.2017, an application was filed by the petitioner for filing fresh written statement, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2018. The said order is the subject matter of CR No.4126 of 2018. Thereafter, application for amendment of the written statement came to be filed, which was treated as reviewing the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the trial Court. The application was accordingly dismissed vide order dated 11.05.2018.
6. In the application for filing fresh written statement on behalf of defendant No.2, it was alleged that petitioner is a senior citizen aged 90 years and is living in House No.445, Sector 6, Panchkula along with defendant No.1 and his wife. Defendant No.1 and his wife are taking care of the petitioner. Plaintiff is NRI and is living in Brazil. He came to India and demanded his share in the House No.445 Sector 6, Panchkula. The house is in the name of defendant No.1. The house was constructed by defendant No.1. Plaintiff got signed some papers from the petitioner without disclosing real nature of the papers. Petitioner made numerous complaints against the plaintiff and his servants. Petitioner never engaged any counsel for filing the written statement in the aforesaid case, nor signed any written statement. Plaintiff manipulated the written statement of the petitioner/defendant No.2. Plaintiff got signatures of the petitioner fraudulently on several papers including general power of attorney and Will etc. Petitioner prayed that these documents be considered as revoked.
7. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and alleged that summon was issued to defendant No.2/petitioner and the same was duly served upon her on 25.07.2014. Defendant No.2 signed the summon at the back as a token of acknowledgment. She had also received summons on behalf of defendant No.1. After receiving the summons, she engaged Sh. Kamal Joshi, Advocate. Written statement was filed after understanding the controversy. Reply to the application for interim injunction was also filed along with affidavits. She signed each and every page on 11.08.2014. She also came to the Court and got her affidavit attested from the Oath Commissioner on 11.08.2014. In proof of her identity, she had also produced her Aadhaar Card before the Oath Commissioner. Number of her Aadhaar Card was noted in the affidavits annexed with the written statement.
8. Petitioner filed an application for filing fresh written statement on the ground that earlier written statement was not filed by her as she never engaged any counsel nor appeared in the Court at any point of time. The application was filed on 03.08.2017
