P.S.PATWALIA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.10.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which an application filed by the defendant seeking amendment in the written statement was declined. The suit was filed on 01.06.1996 and still remains pending at the trial stage.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the defendants in the suit, submits that once the Court had allowed the respondent-plaintiffs to amend the suit, it could not have frustrated the right of the defendants for filing the amended written statement to the plaint. A perusal of the documents on the record as also the order passed by the trial Court would show that only a typographical error in the number of the property mentioned in the title of the suit was sought to be corrected by way of amendment. The number was wrongly mentioned as 206 and was sought to be corrected as 208 in the title of the suit. I have gone through the original plaint and also gone through the amended plaint. It is clear from the reading of the plaint that in the body of the plaint, the number 208 has been rightly referred to at more than one place. Therefore the amendment was allowed and the error was permitted to be corrected.
(3.) THEREAFTER the trial Court allowed the petitioner to file an amended written statement. However, in the guise of filing written statement, the petitioner wanted to raise a number of fresh/new pleas. By way of illustration a reading of the original written statement and the amended written statement would show that while referring the statement made by Sham Lal, father of defendant No. 3 in the earlier suit and mentioned in para 3 the same was not specifically denied in the original written statement whereas in the guise of the amended written statement, a stand was sought to be taken that Sham Lal has not made any such statement before any Court.;