VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana declining the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) to amend the written statement filed by the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 80,000/- plus interest against the petitioner on the basis of pronote in which defendant-petitioner filed written statement in which a preliminary objection was taken to the following effect : "4. That the plaintiff has definitely played fraud with the defendant as the defendant has never borrowed any such sum nor even executed any pronote and receipt." When the case was at the stage of arguments an application was moved by the petitioner seeking to amend the written statement as follows : "That the defendant wants to add the facts in the preliminary objection No. 4 in addition to existing preliminary objection No. 4 :- That the brother of the plaintiff named Sham Lal was doing the business of commission agent at Patra Mandi and the family of the defendant whose Karta is one Prithvi Ram i.e. elder brother of the defendant was the customer of above said Sham Lal. The defendant frequently (used) go to the shop of aforesaid Sham Lal to sell the crops, as driver of the tractor and the above-stated Sham Lal usually got signature of the defendant in token of money advanced for diesel and other expenses on the blank papers. The aforesaid Sham has managed to get the signature of the defendant on the lower part of the receipt of the pronote by placing it between the blank papers, hence the defendant has not executed any pronote or receipt in token of the loan. However, the signature on the pronote are forged by the plaintiff or his brother by free and forgery." Similarly the proposed amendment in para 1 of reply on merit is as under :- "That the contents of this para are absolutely wrong and denied. It is correct that the plaintiff along with his brother was in good term with the defendant but the good terms came to an end but the plaintiff and his brother and the defendant and the brother of defendant who was Karta of the plaintiff in favour of Prithvi, brother of the defendant. The defendant was not having any relation good or bad with the plaintiff and never visited the shop of the plaintiff, as such the question of making any request for borrowing any alleged sum of Rs. 80,000/- does not arise at all." The learned trial Court after considering the arguments of the parties was pleased to reject the amendment application by passing the following order :
(3.) THIS application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been filed by the defendant to amend written statement earlier filed by the defendant in the suit. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount on the basis of pronote and receipt executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant wants to amend para 4 of the written statement of preliminary objection in the earlier written statement filed by the defendant. The plaintiff has taken preliminary objection in para No. 4 that plaintiff has definitely prayed fraud with the defendant as the defendant has never borrowed any such amount nor executed any pronote and receipt. Now the defendant wants to add in para No. 4 that brother of plaintiff Sham Lal was doing business of commission agent (sic) customer of the abovesaid Sham Lal and defendant frequently go to the shop of above said Sham Lal to sell crop as a driver of the Tractor and the above said Sham Lal usually got signature of the defendant in token of money advanced for diesel and other expenses on blank papers. In this way the above said Sham Lal has managed to get the signature of defendant on the lower part of pronote and receipt by placing it between blank papers. Hence, the defendant has not executed any receipt or pronote in token of loan. Signature on pronote are forged by the plaintiff by free-hand forgery. However, the defendant wants to set up a new case by amending para No. 4 of the written statement, as the defendant wants to add that brother of the plaintiff Sham Lal has taken signature of the defendant on some blank papers and used it by the plaintiff to file this suit against the defendant. Whereas, earlier the defendant has not taken any plea regarding forgery played by the brother of the plaintiff Sham Lal with the defendant. Moreover, the defendant wants to amend para No. 1 of the written statement on merits, whereas in earlier written statement, it is admitted by the plaintiff that plaintiff was in good terms with the defendant but now the defendant wants to substitute para No. 1 of the reply on merits that brother of the plaintiff Sham Lal was in good terms with the defendants as being his customer. However, the admission made by the party earlier cannot be withdrawn as admission in the earlier written statement filed by the defendant. It is admitted that defendant and brother of the plaintiff Sham Lal has good relationship. Counsel for the plaintiff relies upon 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 614 : 1998(1) Judicial Reports 350 in case Sant Parkash Singh v. Nirmal Singh wherein it was held :- "Civil Procedure Code 1908, Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment - Seeking to withdraw admission - Admission made not shown to be wrong nor has it been explained away - Application rightly dismissed." ;