MANMOHAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner (defendant in the suit) has assailed the order dated 15th February, 2013 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) filed a suit for permanent injunction against dispossession of the respondent from the suit property without due process of law in May, 1995. The petitioner filed its written statement, raising various objections, in December, 1996. By way of application for amendment, the petitioner submitted that in the written statement the suit property had been inadvertently mentioned to be a part of Khasra No.63, of the revenue estate of Village Patti Hamid Sarai instead of Khasra No.64 of the same revenue estate. Therefore, it sought to amend para 4 of preliminary objections and para 2 of the reply on merits to this effect. It was also stated in the application that the said amendment will not change the stand of the DDA and was necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
(3.) THE contention of the respondent was that the application for amendment filed by the petitioner was an afterthought and an attempt to resile from the admissions after a gap of 16 years. There was no explanation on behalf of the petitioner for seeking the amendment.;