Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) In a suit, namely Original Suit No. 92 of 2002 (Fasiudeen and others vs. Tej Bahadur and others) instituted on 29.2.2002, seeking declaration for partition of a house (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"), written statement was filed by petitioners/defendant no. 1, 2, and 4 to 7 on 26.5.2003. The defendant no. 3 had filed a separate written statement on 5.12.2004. The defendant no. 8, who claimed to have stepped into the shoes of the defendant no. 3 and impleaded in the suit, filed his written statement on 5.10.2017. The suit has proceeded and the evidence of both the parties were concluded. At the stage of arguments, an amendment application dated 5.9.2018 was filed by defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 seeking amendment of paragraphs '33', '34' and '36' of the original written statement Paper No. Ka-55 dated 26.5.2003. The amendment application registered as Paper No. 468-A was rejected by the trial Court. The matter was taken up in revision which was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2018. Both the orders are under challenge in the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the proposed amendments in the written statement are only explanatory in nature. The averments made in paragraph '33', '34' and '36' of the written statement are sought to be explained by means of amendment. It was not a case where the defendants sought to set up new pleadings or defence by way of amendment, nor it was a case where it could be said that any admission made in the written statement was sought to be withdrawn. The Courts below have committed illegality in rejecting the amendment application on the ground of delay. The Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment at any stage of the proceeding which are necessary for the purpose of determination of the real question in controversy between the parties. The legislature does not imposes any limitation rather left it open for the court to decide as to whether the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy and it is the discretion of the Court to allow amendment before or after the trial or even in appeal.;