J U D G M E N T

By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails order dated 06.07.2022, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.91-6/2022, in Civil Suit No.142/1 of 2020, titled Smt. Harbhajan Kaur Versus Sarbjeet Singh, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code by the petitioner/defendant, seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiff’) against the petitioner/defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’). This Civil Suit was instituted in the month of November, 2020. The written statement to the same was filed by the defendant in the month of November, 2020 itself. The application seeking amendment in the written statement was filed by the defendant in the month of April, 2022, in terms whereof, the defendant prayed that in the course of preparing the case for cross-examination of the plaintiff, it transpired that complete description of the property was left from being described in the written statement and certain assertions of the defendant were also not made in the written statement mistakenly and inadvertently, which were crucial to decide the material controversy between the parties and on these grounds, proposed amendments were sought to be incorporated in the written statement. It was further averred in the application that the proposed amendments would go to the route of the case and shall clinch the controversy between the parties and as the plaintiff had concealed the material facts in the suit, therefore, the amendment was necessary. It was also pleaded in the application that proposed amendments were neither contrary to the plea earlier raised in the written statement nor inconsistent with it. The proposed amendments as per the defendant would not change the nature and stand already taken, but would help the defendant to get justice and on these basis, a prayer was made for granting permission to the defendant to amend the written statement.

3. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the plea of the defendant that in the written statement, certain assertions and facts stood mistakenly and inadvertently let out was incorrect and complete defence to the plaint stood taken by the defendant in the original written statement so filed. It was also mentioned in the reply that the defendant was concocting a false story just to grab the property of the plaintiff who was an aged lady. It was further denied in the reply that proposed amendments were necessary for the adjudication of the case and would clinch the controversy as alleged and it was submitted in the reply that the amendments, if allowed, would change the nature of the suit at a belated stage.

4. In terms of the order under challenge, the application so filed has been rejected by learned Trial Court, inter alia, on the ground that a perusal of the written statement filed demonstrates that whatever was proposed to be incorporated by way of amendment, in fact, was already averred in the written statement, which earlier stood filed and in these circumstances there was no reasonable and justifiable ground to allow the application.

5. Mr. Pratap Singh Goverdhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that the learned Court below erred in not appreciating that as there were some inadvertent mistakes committed at the time of filing of the written statement, which discrepancies could be fatal as far as the petitioner is concerned, therefore, in these circumstances, in the interest of justice, learned Trial Court ought to have h