- (1.) Defendant no.1/petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 27.11.2010(P1) whereby her application under Section 151 CPC for reading and taking into consideration her earlier written statement dated 22.5.2004 for the purpose of deciding the civil suit, has been dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents for possession by specific performance of an agreement to sell the petitioner/defendant had filed a written statement dated 22.5.2004 denying the execution of agreement to sell. However, she being a villager and resident of Rajasthan was mis-led into filing of subsequent written statement dated 1.6.2005 admitting the plaint. It is further submitted that in the interest of justice earlier written statement be permitted to be taken into consideration.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. It is not in dispute that after the filing of the earlier written statement dated 22.5.2004, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was filed and the same was allowed vide order dated 1.6.2005. Thereafter issues were framed and evidence led. It is also not in dispute that case is now at the stage of recording of defence evidence. The plea that the contents of the subsequent written statement dated 1.6.2005 were not read over to the petitioner/defendant Smt.Santosh cannot be believed nor accepted. Her signatures on the Vakalatnama shows that she is not illiterate lady. Once having sought amendment of her written statement, now she cannot be permitted to wriggle out of her pleadings made in the amended written statement. Dismissed.;