The court upheld a liberal approach to amendments in pleadings, allowing inconsistencies unless they cause prejudice, emphasizing the need for effective adjudication of the real issues.

Judgment

Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J.:- The present revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 26.07.2013 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh vide which the application filed by respondent-defendant No.3 Naval Singh for amendment of written statement was allowed.

2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner-plaintiff and respondents-defendants No.4 to 6 are real brothers and oral family settlement was pleaded amongst the brothers. The case set up was that the land comprised in Khasra No.28 had fallen to the share of the petitionerplaintiff and the land comprised in Khasra No.86 had fallen to the share of respondents-defendants No.4 to 6. The land comprised in Khasra No.28 measured 17 marlas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the disputed land’). It was alleged that the respondents-defendants No.1 to 3 were threatening to take forcible possession of the disputed land. During the pendency of a previously instituted suit by the son of the petitioner-plaintiff, the respondents-defendants No.1 to 3 had taken forcible possession of the disputed land and had illegally started raising construction. Accordingly, the suit for possession and permanent injunction was filed.

2(i) The suit was resisted by the respondents-defendants No.1 and 2. Though respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement (Annexure P-2) and respondent-defendant No.3 filed his own separate written statement (Annexure P-3), the stand taken in both the written statements was the same. The previous suit filed by Kishan Singh son of the petitioner-plaintiff was pleaded in both the written statements stating that in view of the same, the present suit was not maintainable. It was averred that the respondents-defendants No.1 to 3 were in possession of the disputed land for the last more than 80 years. Certain preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, locus standi, the suit being barred by limitation etc. were raised. On merits, the family settlement etc. was denied and it was reiterated that the respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 were in actual physical and continuous possession of the disputed land for the last more than 80 years and had, therefore, become owners of the disputed land by way of adverse possession. In the written statement filed by respondent-defendant No.3, a counter claim was set up. A decree of declaration was sought to the effect that the respondent-defendant No.3 had become the owner of the disputed land by way of adverse possession. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-plaintiff from dispossessing the respondentdefendant No.3 from the disputed land was also sought.

2(ii) Issues were framed. Trial commenced. Evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff concluded. At the stage of evidence of the respondentsdefendants, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-4) was moved by the respondent-defendant No.3 for amendment of the written statement. A stand was taken that the petitioner-plaintiff and brothers of respondent-defendant No.3 were co-sharers alongwith the respondentdefendant No.3 in Khasra No.37 and that the parties to the suit were successors of common ancestors Ghasi. It was averred that respondentdefendant No.3 had raised his residential house in Khasra No.37. It was also pleaded that adjacent to Khasra No.37 was Khasra No.86 which was under the ownership of the petitioner-plaintiff and his brothers. It was also averred that the facts pleaded in the written statement had come to the notice of the respondent-defendant No.3 when he engaged another counsel, who disclosed the contents of the written statement while preparing for the evidence. Accordingly, certain amendments, as set out in the application were sought to be introduced in the written statement. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-5), filed by t