- (1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 18.02.2013, dismissing the application of the defendants for amendment of the written statement. In short, Bhagwan Dass, predecessor-in-interest of respondents no.1 to 8 filed suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit property without adopting due course of law. It was averred in para 2 of the plaint that the plaintiff Bhagwan Dass is a tenant under the Shorgar Shamlat Panchayat's land. In the written statement filed through S.S.Kinha, Advocate, by the defendants, it was alleged in reply to para 2 that the contents of para 2 are wrong and denied.
(2.) In the municipal record, the ownership of the suit property is in the name of Data Ram son of Naresh Kumar who has expired but his LRs have not been arrayed as party. It was denied that the plaintiff is tenant in the suit property. It was alleged in para 4 of the written statement that the defendants did not receive the rent from the plaintiff and as already stated, in the municipal record, the ownership of the suit property is in the name of one Sh. Data Ram. Copy of the house tax receipt was also attached in this regard.
(3.) The trial Court framed various issues on 10.02.2010 and according to the averments made in the petition, the defendants came to know that a wrong averment has been made regarding ownership of the suit property in the name of Data Ram and thereafter, they changed their advocate Shri S.S.Kinha and engaged a new counsel and filed the application on 19.08.2012 for seeking amendment of their original written statement only to the extent that in place of words "in the municipal record, the ownership of the suit property is in the name of Sh. Data Ram son of Sh. Naresh Kumar, who has expired but his LRs have not been made party", as mentioned in para 2 of their written statement, following words may be added that "suit property belongs to Shorgar Shamlat Panchayat Land". In the application, it was projected that a wrong averment had been made in the written statement because of their negligence but it was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the defendants are entitled to plead the inconsistent stand and the admission can be explained.;