Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karnail Singh vs Ashok Kumar on 11 April, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 162 of 2015.
Date of decision: 11/4/2016.
.
Karnail Singh Petitioners.
Versus
Ashok Kumar Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sureshwar Thakur, J.
of
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: rt Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (oral)
Heard. A suit for specific performance stood instituted before the learned trial Court by the plaintiff/ respondent herein against the petitioner herein.
Therein reliance stood placed by the plaintiff upon an agreement of sale executed qua the suit property inter se the parties at lis. The sale agreement inter se the contesting parties qua the suit property stood executed on 10.12.2003. Initially, in the written statement instituted to the plaint, the defendant had therein admitted the factum of his in the year 2003 running a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:06:52 :::HCHP 2 business with the plaintiff. For perpetuating the performance of a partnership business inter se them the defendant initially contended in the written .
statement of some documents standing executed inter se the parties at lis. A perusal of the relevant paragraph No.3 of the written statement discloses of of the plaintiff in connivance with the marginal witnesses scribing on blank papers signed by the defendant for rt establishing a partnership business to be run by both an agreement of sale qua the suit property. However in dire contradiction thereto, the defendant/petitioner herein now with the leave of the Court proposes in his application the incorporation in his written statement the factum of his rather contrarily running a business in partnership with one Mohinder Pal. Furthermore in dire contradictions to the plea initially asserted in the written statement of his signing blank papers for enabling the establishment of a business in partnership which both he and the plaintiff were operating in the year 2003, he has averred in paragraph 3 of his ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:06:52 :::HCHP 3 obtaining a loan from one Jagdish Ram, who for effectuating recovery of loan advanced by him to the defendant obtained his signatures on blank papers .
which ultimately resulted in the scribing at his instance by the plaintiff, the agreement to sell qua the suit property.
of
2. The aforesaid rife open contradiction viz.a.viz in the initial assertions made by the defendant in the rt written statement in repudiation to the claim asserted in the plaint by the plaintiff palpably displays of the defendant/petitioner herein cultivating by pre mediation and after thought a new plea which stood omitted to be initially averred by him in the written statement.
necessarily then he has substantially altered the structure of the written statement. Gross alteration of the structure of the written statement at the instance of the defendant is impermissible. In sequel, given the contradictions inter se the averments set up by the defendant petitioner herein initially in his written statement to the plaint vis. a. vis the proposed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:06:52 :::HCHP 4 amendments, this Court is constrained to decline their incorporation in the written statement. Consequently, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly .
dismissed.
11th April, 2016 (Sureshwar Thakur)
™ Judge.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:06:52 :::HCHP