CR No.3348 of 2013 (O&M)

[ 1 ]

****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR No.3348 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of decision:04.11.2014

Suraj Bhan and another

...Petitioners

Versus

Shanti Devi and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate, with

Ms. Pallavi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. D.K.Tuteja, Advocate,

for the respondents.

*****

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 18.02.2013,

dismissing the application of the defendants for amendment of the written

statement.

In short, Bhagwan Dass, predecessor-in-interest of respondents

no.1 to 8 filed suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from

dispossessing him from the suit property without adopting due course of

law. It was averred in para 2 of the plaint that the plaintiff Bhagwan Dass is

a tenant under the Shorgar Shamlat Panchayat’s land. In the written

statement filed through S.S.Kinha, Advocate, by the defendants, it was

alleged in reply to para 2 that the contents of para 2 are wrong and denied.

VINOD KUMAR

2014.11.13 11:05

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CR No.3348 of 2013 (O&M)

[ 2 ]

****

In the municipal record, the ownership of the suit property is in the name of

Data Ram son of Naresh Kumar who has expired but his LRs have not been

arrayed as party. It was denied that the plaintiff is tenant in the suit

property. It was alleged in para 4 of the written statement that the

defendants did not receive the rent from the plaintiff and as already stated,

in the municipal record, the ownership of the suit property is in the name of

one Sh. Data Ram. Copy of the house tax receipt was also attached in this

regard.

The trial Court framed various issues on 10.02.2010 and

according to the averments made in the petition, the defendants came to

know that a wrong averment has been made regarding ownership of the suit

property in the name of Data Ram and thereafter, they changed their

advocate Shri S.S.Kinha and engaged a new counsel and filed the

application on 19.08.2012 for seeking amendment of their original written

statement only to the extent that in place of words “in the municipal record,

the ownership of the suit property is in the name of Sh. Data Ram son of Sh.

Naresh Kumar, who has expired but his LRs have not been made party”, as

mentioned in para 2 of their written statement, following words may be

added that “suit property belongs to Shorgar Shamlat Panchayat Land”.

In the application, it was projected that a wrong averment had

been made in the written statement because of their negligence but it was

dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the defendants are

entitled to plead the inconsistent stand and the admission can be explained.

VINOD KUMAR

2014.11.13 11:05

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CR No.3348 of 2013 (O&M)

[ 3 ]

****

In this regard, he has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and

others, 2007(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 830 and a judgment of this Court in the case

of Sagar Singh Salathia v. Surinder Pal Singh, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 37

in which it has been held that the admissions are best form of evidence

which a party can rely against the other but such admissions could always

be explained.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that the application filed by the petitioners for amendment is not

bona fide and is an attempt to withdraw the admission to the detriment of

the interest of the respondents. It is submitted that the entire tenor of the

written statement, originally filed by the defendants-petitioners, is that

Bhagwan Dass was not the tenant under the Shorgar Shamlat Panchayat

rather the ownership vests with one Data Ram S/o Naresh Kuma