A.N. Jindal, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.04.2010 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, whereby the application filed by the Plaintiff -Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioner') under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed.
(2.) THE Petitioner has submitted that he is the owner of the property bearing E.P. No. 1273, House Tax No. 3728, shown in blue colour in the site plan, on the strength of certificate of sale dated 29.09.1969. The Defendant -Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent') in his written statement had set up a judgment and decree dated 30.07.1988, an agreement dated 16.04.1988 and compromise dated 19.07.1988 to claim the property, shown in green colour in the site plan. Therefore, after coming to know about the decree dated 30.07.1988, Petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint, challenging the said decree and also to deny the agreement dated 16.04.1988 and compromise dated 19.07.1988. The decree has been challenged on the ground that the same has been obtained by impersonation. The trial Court has disallowed the application on the ground that the Petitioner wanted to withdraw his admission made in the plaint, whereby he admitted the judgment and decree, the compromise as well as the agreement, as referred above. I have perused the plaint in order to verify, if any admission with regard to the judgment and decree, the compromise as well as the agreement, has been made by the Plaintiff or not. There is no mention in the plaint about the aforesaid three documents. However, the Petitioner in his plaint while claiming himself to be the owner of the property shown in blue colour, has stated that he had given the property, shown in green colour, to the Respondent about 20 years back. Now the question to be seen is, whether the property, shown in green colour in the site plan, is covered by the decree sought to be challenged by the Petitioner? As such it cannot be said in the given circumstances of the case, that the Petitioner wants to withdraw any admission. In any case, the wrong admission or admission, erroneously made, cannot be superseded by the true facts and even the admission could be explained away by the amendment. The suit is, admittedly, at the initial stage. Therefore, in order to impart complete justice to the parties and to supply the complete material to the Court for just decision of the case, the amendment sought for having come to the knowledge of the Petitioner on filing of the written statement by the Respondent, could not be refused. The trial Court has taken a wrong view of the matter by declining the application.
(3.) IN these circumstances, this petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 16.04.2010 (Annexure P -3) is set aside and the application for amendment of the plaint is allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 2000/ - as costs.;