- (1.) O. P. Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Ajay Rajendra and Sri Mohd. Irshad Khan learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THEY have agreed that this revision may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. This revision is directed against the order rejecting the application of the revisionist for amendment in the plaint. The pleas sought to be added by way of amendment in the plaint are already there in the replication. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that since the replication does not form the part of the pleadings, it is necessary to be included in the plaint. However, this plea did not find favour of the learned Court below resulting into rejection of the application for amendment. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Lal Kapoor v. IXth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and Ors. , 1996 (2) JCLR 14 (All) : 1996 (1) ARC 600 in support of his contention that replication is not part of pleadings as defined in Order VI, Rule 1. While interpreting the Order VI, Rule 1, this Court in para-17 of the said judgment has clearly laid down that since the meaning of said provision is clear and unambiguous, the Court is not invited to add anything or to read some- thing more which is totally absent. In the definition of Order VI Rule 1, the replication is not. mentioned as part of pleadings but only plaint or written statement are stated to be pleadings. Thus, the pleas taken in the replication cannot be taken into consideration as pleadings for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Since issues are framed on the basis of pleadings, the said pleas can be considered only when they are incorporated in the plaint. Since the pleas are already there in the replication which cannot form part of the pleadings the learned Court below committed error in rejecting the application for amendment. The Court has clearly observed that pleas sought to be introduced in plaint do not change the nature of the suit, therefore, same may be incorporated in the plaint.
(3.) IN view of the above, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. While setting aside the order of the lerned Court below rejecting the application for amendment, the application for amendment is hereby allowed and the revisionist is permitted to incorporate the amendment. Parties shall bear their own costs. Revision allowed. .;