Punjab-Haryana High Court
Monika vs Sandeep on 6 December, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Civil Revision No. 6553 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6553 of 2011
Date of decision : December 06, 2012
Monika
....Petitioner
versus
Sandeep
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. KS Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the respondent
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
In this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff Monika has assailed order dated 17.9.2011 (Annexure P/6) passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P/4 moved by defendant/respondent Sandeep for amendment of his written statement Annexure P2/A. Plaintiff-petitioner in the suit has inter alia challenged release deed dated 22.2.2002 allegedly executed by her in favour of defendant Civil Revision No. 6553 of 2011 -2- regarding 1/4th share in 193 kanals 8 marlas land on the ground of fraud etc. The defendant in his written statement Annexure P2/A has repeatedly controverted the said claim of the plaintiff and defended the execution of the release deed in question as legal and valid.
In the amendment application Annexure P/4, the defendant alleged that in paragraph 2(vii) of the written statement, while denying the said paragraph of the plaint, it was inadvertently stated that the factum of execution of release deed was kept concealed from the plaintiff, whereas the said plea was to be denied. The word 'stated' is to be substituted by the word 'denied'.
Plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P/5 opposed the amendment application.
Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/6 has allowed the amendment application subject to payment of ` 1000/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition challenging the said order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner relying on judgments of this Court in Shanti Bhatia and others versus Miss Priyanka and others, 2012(5) RCR (Civil) 248 and Ajit Kumar versus Kiran Kumari and others, Civil Revision No. 6553 of 2011 -3- 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 1 contended that proposed amendment of written statement for withdrawing the admission made in the original written statement could not be allowed. It was also contended that amendment of written statement was sought at final stage of argument in the suit and therefore, the same could not be allowed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in Avtar Singh versus Tara Rani, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 52.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contended that the written statement has to be read as a whole and it would depict that the defendant has repeatedly and strongly denied the averments of the plaintiff regarding challenge to the release deed and has defended the release deed to be legal and valid and there was only inadvertent typographical error in paragraph 2(vii) of the written statement which is sought to be corrected by amendment of written statement and the same has, therefore, been rightly allowed by the trial court.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is no dispute with the proposition that admission made in the original written statement cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by amendment thereof. There is also no dispute with the proposition that ordinarily after commencement of trial, amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed. Aforesaid propositions of law laid down in the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner, Civil Revision No. 6553 of 2011 -4- however, do not help the petitioner in the instant case. Para no. 2(vii) of the plaint is reproduced hereinunder:-
"2(vii) That the aforesaid facts were kept concealed by the defendant and the plaintiff has now in the last week of December 2005 came to know about the aforesaid fraud played by defendant when the plaintiff came to know that the defendant under the garb of illegal document intends to further alienate the suit land."
Corresponding para no. 2(vii) of the original written statement Annexure P2/A is also reproduced hereinunder:-
"2(vii) That para no. 2(vii) of the plaint is wrong hence denied. It is stated here that the fact of execution of the release deed was kept concealed from the plaintiff and the plaintiff came to know only in the last week of December, 2005 regarding the execution of the release deed. It is stated here that the plaintiff is an educated lady and she is shrewd and cunning and was very much aware about the execution of the impugned release deed since 22.02.2002. The defendant has every right to alienate the suit land in favour of any person in any manner."
Paragraphs 2(iv), (v) and (vi) of the original written statement are also reproduced hereinunder:-
"2(iv) That para No. 2(iv) of the plaint is wrong hence denied. The plaintiff is a well educated lady and was Civil Revision No. 6553 of 2011 -5- major at the time of execution of the release deed dated 22.02.2002. No fraud or undue influence was practiced over the plaintiff in the execution and registration of the release deed.
(v) That para No. 2(v) of the plaint is wrong hence denied. The plaintiff out of her own free will relinquished all her rights, title and interest in the suit land in favour of the defendant vide release deed dated 22.02.2002 regarding the suit land.
(vi) That para no. 2(vi) of the plaint is wrong hence denied. It was the plaintiff who out of her own free will duly executed the release deed dated 22.02.2002 in favour of the defendant in the presence of the attesting witnesses and the same was got registered by Sub Registrar Bahadurgarh as per provisions of law. There was no need of the mother of the plaintiff in the execution of the release deed when the plaintiff herself is an educated lady. It is wrong to say that the rate of the agriculture land in village Badli has gone many fold high and due to this reason the plaintiff has turned dishonest."
From bare perusal of the aforesaid pleadings, it becomes evident that the word 'stated' in paragraph 2(vii) in the original written statement is result of typographical error and in fact this word should have been 'denied'. Reading the written statement as a whole, this thing becomes very clear and manifest. Consequently, proposed amendment of Civil Revision No. 6553 of 2011 -6- written statement has been rightly allowed by the trial court. However, cost amount has to be enhanced because the amendment was sought at the fag end of the trial.
It may be mentioned that courts are not chess board for the game of chess so that a litigant is to be defeated by tactical moves. Courts are meant to do justice. Provisions relating to amendment of pleadings are rules of procedure and are, therefore, handmaids of justice and are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to obstruct the same. The defendant cannot be defeated merely because of some typographical error in the written statement nor the proposed amendment of written statement amounts to withdrawal of any admission made in the original written statement.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition except regarding cost amount. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error (except regarding amount of cost) so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed except that the defendant/respondent shall pay ` 5000/- in all as costs precedent for amendment of the written statement.
( L.N. Mittal )
December 06, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'