- (1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sub-Division Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, vide which the application moved by the petitioner-defendant for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC), has been dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that plaintiff-respondent no.1 has filed the suit for declaration claiming herself to be the owner in joint possession of the land in dispute. He contended that the defendant only want to raise the additional ground of defence that property in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Kartara son of Dalmira, the father of the plaintiff-respondent no.1. He contended that the law regarding amendment of written statement is quite liberal. Petitioners-defendants will not lead any fresh evidence on the point of nature of the property, if the amendment is allowed.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the parties have already adduced their evidence. The application filed by petitioners-defendants is highly belated. The proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit. They want to change their stand by making the proposed amendment in the written statement, which will cause prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs-respondents. Thus, he contended that the application moved by the petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court.;