JUDGEMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the ADJ West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in Civil Case No. 42/2022 titled as ‘Bhim Singh v. Sanjeev Lakra’, wherein the application dated 18.11.2022 (‘amendment application’) filed by the Petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

1.1 The Petitioner herein is the defendant and the Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the civil suit, pending adjudication before the Trial Court. For ease of reference, the parties are being referred to by their original rank and status as was before the Trial Court.

1.2 The plaintiff has filed the civil suit under The Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking decree of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated CM(M) 803/2023 Page 2 of 10 18.11.2021 (‘ATS’) and issuance of directions to the defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to property bearing plot no. 608/2/A, Khasra No. 608/2, situated within the extended Lal Dora, Mundka Village, Delhi - 110041, measuring 250 sq. yards (‘suit property’).

1.3 The plaintiff has contended that the parties herein executed the ATS for sale of the suit property for a sale consideration amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- and the plaintiff has paid part consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant refused to perform the ATS and as a result, the plaintiff filed the civil suit on 10.01.2022.

1.4 The civil suit was registered on 11.01.2022, summons was issued on 13.01.2022 and were served to the defendant on 28.01.2022. The defendant filed its written statement (‘original written statement’) to the civil suit on 07.07.2022, wherein the defendant denied holding negotiations for sale of the suit property and categorically denied the execution of ATS as well as receipt of the part consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. In fact to buttress the submission of non-execution of ATS, it is pleaded that the defendant never wanted to sell the suit property to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has elected not to file replication to the original written statement as recorded by the Trial Court.

1.5 By order dated 01.09.2022, issues were framed in the civil suit and the matter was listed for plaintiff’s evidence on the next date of hearing i.e., 09.11.2022. It is at this advance stage, on 19.11.2022, the application seeking amendment of the original written statement was filed by the defendant.

1.6 The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 04.02.2023 dismissed the CM(M) 803/2023 Page 3 of 10 amendment application on the grounds that: - (i) pleadings in the civil suit have been completed, (ii) the matter is at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence since 01.09.2022 and (iii) if the amended written statement is taken on record, it would change the nature of the trial.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner i.e., defendant

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner i.e., defendant states that the original written statement was filed on 07.07.2022 by the previous counsel. However, after the present counsel was engaged and explained the contents of the written statement, the defendant learnt that correct facts had not been set out in the original written statement. He states that therefore to set the record straight, the defendant seeks permission to incorporate a ‘new’ paragraph as paragraph no. 6 of preliminary objections and rectify paragraph no. 4 of reply on merits in the original written statement.

2.1 He states that the facts now sought to be placed on record (by way of amendment) as they existed on 04.10.2021 are material facts which would explain t