40

0

1

Civil Revision No670

of ²⁰¹⁰

1m

1

24r

INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision N3670

of ²⁰¹⁰

1

t

Date

May2011

Jagdish^Chander

eePetitioner

n

l

Versus

0

VijayPal ^and others

0

2espondents

t5

CORAM

HONBLE

MR JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

Z

Present MrAhunger

Advocate

1

2

for the petitioner

L

Mr IVKSajjanAdvocate

for the respondents

Z

RAJIVE BHALLA

J

CQ

The petitioner

an

order dated 122010

7

Z

passedby^{the Civil} Judge ^Junior Divisionl^Abohar

dismissing

11

an appiicationfor amendment of his writtenstatement

Vijay^Pal respondent^nl

filed ^a suit for possessionby

way of specificperformanceof

an

agreement^to sell dated

17052004 and also challenged

a sale deed dated 0462004

executed by respondentno2

in favour of the petitionerand

proformarespondent^no

The

peoner

and

proforma

respondentn3

appeared^{before the triai} court ^{and fiied}

a

detailed writtenstatement pieadingthat theywere not aware

of

Rani Anita

2013.01.21 15:59

True Scanned

Copy of the

Original

PHHC,

Chandigarh

JOYTI RANI

2016.03.28 16:23

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

41

0

2e6

Civil Revision

No670

of 2010

2e

1

the allegedagreementto sell executed in favour of

no1

During^{his evidence}

the petitionerproveda

prior

to sell dated 31

72003

executed by

no2 in favour of the petitioners

brotherGanpatRai

However

as

the agreementto sell

was

not pleadedin the written

1

statement

the petitionerand

respondent^no

filed

an

0

for amendmentof the writtenstatement to pleadthis

0

0

prior

to sell

The petitioner

averred that

0

no2executed this agreementto sell in favour of the petitioners

brotherGanpatRai with Iiberty

to getthe sale deed executed ^In

Z

favourof a person of his choice GanpatRain therefore gotthe

sale deed executed in favourof the petitioner

Q

It is arguedthat as

the

prioragreement^to sell ^is

C

germane^{to the} petitioners

defence to the issue in hand and

as

Z

it has aireadybeen Ied into evidence as Exl

the petitioner

0

should be allowedto amend his writtenstatement

V7

Z

Vide order dated 125Ol

0

the Civil Judge Junior

Q

DivisionlAbohar

dismissed the

byholding^{that as}

the agreementExOl

was

Ied into evidence on 2092009

the

petitioner

was

aware

of the agreement

to sell and therefore he

could not be allowed to amend his written statement at this

stage

Counsel for the petitioner

submits that the agreement

to sell has alreadybeen Ied into evidence as

ExDl

This prior

agreement^{to sell IS a} germane ^{to and} has ^a significantbearing

Rani Anita

2013.01.21 15:59

True Scanned

Copy of the

Original

PHHC,

Chandigarh

JOYTI RANI

2016.03.28 16:23

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

42

11

C

0

r

Civil Revision No670

of 2010

3

t

1

on

the petitionersdefence4n

amendment of

a

written

statement stands on

a differentfootingfrom amendment of a

plaint^The rejection^{of the prayer for amendment has caused}

serious

prejudice

to the petitioner

and his defence

Counsel

for the

on

the

other hand

1

submits that ^as

the petitioner

was

aware

of the agreementto

C

sellt

is further arguedthat as the trial has commenced and

0

C0

evidence has been recorded the petitioner

cannot be allowedto

I

C5

amend his ^{written statement}

It ^IS also submitted

that the

amendment

would

in

essence

alter the

nature

of

the

Z

petitioners

defence from one of a

bonafide purchaseto one

of

r

a prioragreementto sell Itis prayedthat as the impugned

order

IS neitherperverse nor arbitrary

and does not disclose any error

of

the revision

should be dismissed

Z

have heard counsel for the partiesand perusedthe

OO

order

V

Z

Amendment of

pleadings^{has received considerable}

judicial^{attention and}

it

has

been

held

that

amendmentof a written statement

stands ^on differentfooting

from amendment of

a plaint

The generalparametersthat

govern

consideration of

for

amendments of

pleadingshave ^been succinctlyset ^{out in a} judgment

of ^the

Honble SupremeCourt reportedas

RevajeetuBuilders

8

Developers

V

8t Sons

8

Others

A

relevantextract fromthe judgment

reads ^as followS

Rani Anita

2013.01.21 15:59

True Scanned

Copy of the

Original