- (1.) THE challenge in this revision petition, preferred by Ram Bhaj son of Ram Chander petitioner -defendant No.4, is to the impugned order dated 5.2.2014, by way of which, his application (Annexure P1) for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, was dismissed by the trial Court.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
(3.) AS is evident from the record that initially, Sat Narain son of Tara Chand respondent No.1 -plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff"), has instituted the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner -defendant and other proforma respondent Nos.2 to 4 -defendants (for short "the defendants"). During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.4 was stated to have purchased some share out of the joint plot in dispute from Jai Bhagwan, real brother of the plaintiff, vide registered sale deed dated 30.12.2013. Thus, subsequently, he became co -sharer in the suit property. Therefore, he wants to incorporate the factum of sale deed in the written statement in this regard. It is not a matter of dispute that the plaintiff has filed a simple suit for permanent injunction and petitioner is defendant No.4 in it (main suit). The disputed plot is a joint property of the parties. In case, defendant No.4 has purchased the share of Jai Bhagwan, real brother of plaintiff, even then the property would be deemed to be joint and every co -sharer would legally be deemed to be in possession of every inch of joint plot in litigation. In this manner, the amendment sought to incorporate the factum of subsequent sale deed during the pendency of the suit, would have no direct bearing in a simple suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 appears to have filed the pointed application (Annexure P1) for amendment of his written statement at this belated stage only to delay the disposal of the main suit, which is not legally permissible. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly dismissed the application of petitioner -defendant No.4 for amendment of written statement, by virtue of impugned order dated 5.2.2014, which, in substance, is as under (para 8) : - "I am of the view that the amendment sought would completely change the nature of the dispute as it will withdraw the stand of defendant no.4 regarding the ownership of the suit property earlier made by him and the same cannot be allowed. Further, the amendment application has been moved at a belated stage. The plaintiff would suffer a serious prejudice if the present application is allowed as the trial of the suit is already over, evidence has been tendered and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence. Amendment sought is not an elaboration of the defence already said (Sic. set) out, rather earlier the defendant has taken different stand in his written statement and now by moving this application an altogether different stand is being taken up by the applicant/defendant. As far as the question of purchase of certain part of suit property by the defendants from the brother of plaintiff is concerned, same is a subsequent event. Sale deed being the registered document is per -se admissible in evidence and same can be looked into at the time of arguments.";