Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kumar vs Om Parkash on 19 September, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1990)97PLR670
ORDER M.S. Liberhan, J.
1. This revision arises out of an order declining the application of the ,petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to restrict his written statement to the pleadings amended in the petition for ejectment. _ It was further claimed that' since the respondent had made admissions in the earlier written statement he cannot be permitted to file a written statement inconsistent with the admissions made by him in the earlier written-statement.
2. Admittedly, the petition for ejectment has been amended by the petitioner and The relief as well as the heading of the petition stand amended. While granting the permission to amend the petition for ejectment, no restrictions were imposed with respect to the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent after the amendment of the petition can file his reply to the limited extent i.e., to the amended portion of the petition alone and no further pleas or additional pleas can be introduced nor earlier pleas can be withdrawn. It is further contended that admission once made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn except with a prior permission to amend the written-statement Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Thakkar Babulal Dayashanker v. Mehta Natwarlal Kaluram and Anr., A.I.R. 1978 Guj. 94, and Mittarsain and Anr.s v. Ram Dass and Anr., 1978 R.L.R. 171 and Mehnga Dass and Ors. v. Maya Singh and Anr., A.I.R. 1937 Lah 795.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the submissions made and contends that once a party is allowed to amend his pleadings, no restriction can be imposed on the opposite party to file reply to the pleadings. It was within his legal right to take all available grounds irrespective of the fact whether these were previously taken in the original reply or not. In support of his submission, he relies upon Girdharilai v. Krishan Datt, A.I.R. 1960 Pb 575, New Bank of India Ltd. v. Smt. Raj Rani w/o Jaikishan Dass and Anr., A.I.R. 1966 Pb. 162, Daya Ram v. Puran Chand etc., 1974 Curr. L.J. 74, Jagdish Parsad v. Dhensi Ram (deceased) and other, (1977) 79 P.L.R. 670 and Smt. Dhapan v. Vijay Singh and Ors., 1980 R.L.R. 52.
4. The conspectus of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is that once the permission to amend the plaint is granted and no restrictions have been imposed in the order, the defendants are entitled to file a fresh written-statement wherein they may take a plea which they have not already taken It is further observed that there is no rule of law, statutory or otherwise, which limits or restricts the defendants right when called upon to file the written statement to an amended plaint, to contest the plaintiff's claim, to any particular plea. The general scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure and the policy under living the law of pleadings does not show nor even suggest that the new written-statement should be confined or restricted to the amended portion of the plaint alone. In such a situation, it can not be said that the subsequent written-statement is only an amendment to the written-statement filed earlier
5. Once the plea of the petitioner has been amended, the respondent is at liberty to contest the facts of the petition as framed after the amendment . No restriction has been imposed in the order permitting the amendment with respect to the filing of the written statement. In view of this, it can be reasonably inferred that the respondent was at liberty to contest the petition as framed after the amendment. There is no gain-saying that the amendment is allowed, the amended petition relates back to date of the filing of the petition The parties go to the trial on the amended petition. The suitable defence has to be raised by the respondent to the amended petition. His rights cannot be limited. Whatever admission were made earlier, may become a piece of evidence but these remain no more pleadings on which the parties are to go for trial and no issues can be framed thereon. In this situation, the respondent's right to change his defence cannot be restricted. The effect of any admissions made in the earlier written-statement may be taken note of while appreciating the evidence.
6. In view of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no dispute that the pleadings cannot be amended without the permission of the Court. But herein it is not a case for respondent of the written statement. The permission to amend the petition was sought by the petitioner himself and having secured the permission for a-amendment and having Sled the amended petition, he now cannot be permitted to contend that the respondent should be restricted to controvert only amended part of the petition or plaint or raise suitable objections to the amended part of the pleadings alone.
7 In view of the foregoing observations of mine, I find no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.