Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh vs Ramesh Chand & Ors on 3 April, 2013
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
C.R. No. 6330 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 6330 of 2006
Date of decision : 03.04.2013
Jarnail Singh
....Petitioner
V/s
Ramesh Chand & ors.
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. RAJAN GUPTA J.
This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the trial court rejecting the plea of defendant for amendment of written statement.
It has been averred in the petition that impugned order is unsustainable as petitioner had right to amend the written statement. Application has been erroneously rejected by the court below.
Plea has been opposed by counsel representing the contesting respondent. He submits that suit was instituted way back in the year 1998 and written statement was filed on 14.09.1998. Petitioner wants to delay the proceedings before the trial court. According to him, application is frivolous in nature.
Heard.
It appears that respondent no. 1 filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated C.R. No. 6330 of 2006 2 24.11.1994. Written statement was filed by defendant-Karam Singh. Karam Singh denied execution of agreement to sell and stated that he had borrowed `54,000/- from the plaintiff. At that time, his signatures were obtained on several blank papers. Plaintiff had promised to return the blank papers after payment of borrowed amount. The agreement to sell had been forged on the said papers. After filing written statement, Karam Singh died on 14.08.1999. His LR's were brought on record. They moved the instant application for amendment of written statement after entire evidence of the plaintiff had been recorded. At this stage, petitioner moved the instant application for amendment of written statement. Prayer was rejected by the court below observing that legal representatives could not be allowed to plead other than what had pleaded by the defendant himself. I find that order passed by the court below is unsustainable. Petitioner was forced to move the application for amendment of written statement as his father died during the pendency of civil suit. By way of amendment, he wishes to plead before the court that signatures of his father were obtained on blank papers and agreement was subsequently forged. However, endorsements do not bear signatures of his father and are forged. He sought to amend the written statement to add sub- para (vi) in the reply to contend that signatures of Karam Singh on endorsements dated 21.09.1995 and 15.10.1995 were forged as these were not signatures of Karam Singh. Same had been manipulated to extend the limitation period. In my considered view, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, if amendment in the proposed written statement is allowed. It is settled law that C.R. No. 6330 of 2006 3 amendment in the plaint and amendment in written statement stand on different footings. As the suit was instituted on 06.02.1998, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 would not be attracted. Under the circumstances, this revision petition is allowed and impugned order is set-aside. Application filed by defendant for amendment of written statement is allowed.
April 03, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE