- (1.) The defendant/applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 4 December 2015 passed by the Revisional Court/District Judge, Kanpur arising from an order passed by the trial Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kanpur rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the written statement. The plaintiff/respondent second set instituted a suit being Suit No. 135 of 2013 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent second set from interfering in the disputed property.
(2.) Applicant contested by filing written statement, at the stage of evidence of the applicant/defendant, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment to incorporate that the Government Order dated 12 November 1965 settled 11 properties, in which the land in dispute was included at item no. 5. The Courts below rejected the application for the reason that the application is barred under proviso to Rule 17; the application was moved after the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was closed, therefore, it was held that, it is not open for the applicant to seek amendment of the written statement. Further, no reason was assigned by the applicant, as to how, the fact sought to be incorporated by means of an amendment was not known to the applicant, whereas, the case set up in the written statement was that the applicant is the owner of the suit property.
(3.) Record would reveal that the written statement was filed on 7 August 2013, wherein, it was stated that the suit property was purchased on 8 May 1996 from one Sahabjaade Abdul Jaleel, thereafter, by an amendment it was sought that the suit property was handed over to the cooperative society by the Governor on 12 May 1965. The amendment, therefore, in the opinion of the court below, is neither to supplement the assertions, rather it is a retraction of the earlier statement, thus, setting up new case regarding the title and ownership of the property in dispute.;