NARAYAN SHUKLA,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr.Manish Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Vimal Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.1.
(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated 13th of October, 2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Faizabad, whereby the petitioners' application for amendment of the written statement has been rejected. Through the application for amendment the petitioners have tried to bring on record the facts that two daughters of the plaintiff are residing in their in-law's house, thus her statement that her two daughters reside in the basement, are false. He has further tried to bring on record the fact that the plaintiff has posed her case that there are large number of members in his inner family, but she herself has opened a Restaurant in the residential room and Hall of the basement portion and her younger son Khurseed Alam has constructed his own house in Avadhpuri Colony, Phase-III, Beniganj, Baharganj (Bahadur Ganj), in which he resides with his wife, which establishes that the plaintiff is not in the need of additional residential space. Further the defendants tried to search another house on rent, but the rent of new house is so high as is beyond their capacity further at the rate of old rent no house is available.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the law of amendment of the written statement is concerned, it is settled view of this court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the court should adopt a liberal approach in permitting such an amendment unless there is a recital of admission made through the written statement, if the court thinks it proper that they are required for proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings. In support of his submission he cited a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Baldev Singh and others versus Manohar Singh and another reported in (2006) (24) LCD 1705. He further submits that it is absolutely the discretion of the court to consider the principles of law and material on record to allow the amendment. In support of his submissions he cited a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and others versus Kiran Appaso Swami and others reported in (2007) (25) LCD 1702.;