IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
L.K. MOHAPATRA, J.
Dr. M.S. Abdul Khaliq Chishti - Petitioner
Versus
Sheikh Abdul Hye Chishti - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 5 of 2012
Decided On : 20-01-2016
Amendment of Joint Written Statement - Consent of Co-Defendants - The court rejected the application for amendment of the joint written statement filed by the defendant No.1, as it would take away the effect of admission made by the co-defendants and lacked due diligence. The court held that when a joint written statement is filed by multiple defendants, one of them cannot seek amendment without the consent of the others, as it would result in an inconsistent stand.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant No.1 filed an application for amendment of the joint written statement, which was rejected by the Civil Judge on the grounds of taking away the effect of admission made by co-defendants and lack of due diligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for amendment of the joint written statement was rightly rejected as it lacked the consent of the co-defendants and would result in an inconsistent stand.
Issues: The issues revolved around the proposed amendment of the joint written statement without the consent of co-defendants and the effect of such amendment on the admission made by the co-defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that when a joint written statement is filed by multiple defendants, one of them cannot seek amendment without the consent of the others, as it would result in an inconsistent stand and take away the effect of admission made by the co-defendants.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the application for amendment of the joint written statement filed by the defendant No.1.
This Revision is directed against the order dated 23.7.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Divn-II, Manipur East in Judl. Misc. Case No. 79 of 2012 arising out of O.S.No.33/2004/27 of 2009 rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1.
2. The learned Civil Judge has rejected the application in the impugned order on the ground that the proposed amendment will take away the effect of admission made by the defendants- 1,5, 6 and 7 who had filed a joint written statement and also on the ground that no due diligence has been shown on the part of the defendant No.1 in filing the application for amendment of the joint written statement at the stage of examination of witnesses for defendants.
3. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that when a joint written statement is filed by more than 1 defendants, one of such defendants cannot seek for amendment of the joint written statement without consent of the other defendants who had joined him in filing the joint written statement. In the present case, at it appears from Annexure-A/3, a joint written statement was filed by the defendants- 1, 5, 6 and 7. The proposed amendment is filed only by the defendant No.1 and there is nothing in the said petition to show that consent of the other 3 defendants namely the defendants- 5, 6 and 7 had been taken for filing the application for amendment of the joint written statement. The verification has also been made only by the defendant No.1 on his own behalf.
In this connection, reference may be made to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in 2000 Legal Eagle(ALD) 155. In paragraph 5 of the judgment the learned Single Judge held that an amendment of written statement jointly filed by defendants-1, 2 and 3 cannot be entertained when filed by only one of them. When the written statement is jointly filed by the said defendants, it cannot be amended at the behest of one when the other two defendants do not join him. A similar view has also been expressed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri R D Suresh @ Manjunath vs. Sri R A Manjunath in Writ Petitions No.34252-57 of 2014 (GM-CPC) disposed of on 24.6.2015. In para 18 of the judgment it was held that when joint written statement has been filed, one of the defendants cannot be allowed to take inconsistent stand without the consent of the other defendant.
4. In the present case, as stated earlier, out of the defendants who had filed joint written statement, only defendant No.1 has field this application for amendment of the joint written statement without obtaining consent of the others. As a matter of fact, one of the defendants who had joined the defendant No.1 in filing the joint written statement has objected to the proposed amendment. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Civil Judge rightly did not allow the application for amendment of the joint written statement at the behest of one of the defendants who had filed application for amendment of the joint written statement without obtaining consent of the others who had joined him in filing the joint written statement.
Revision is accordingly dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.