Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the application seeking direction to the respondent-defendant No.1 to strike out the averments made in paragraph (v) of preliminary objection No.7 in the amended written statement by incorporating the previous one, has been dismissed.
(2.) Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell and on the basis of information received under RTI, he moved application for amendment of the plaint by incorporating paragraph 11A and 11B. The same was allowed. Though the defendant filed the written statement but withdrew certain paragraphs from the unamended written statement. Such act is not permissible in law as it amounts to departure from the previous admission. In support of his contention, he relies upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 194 , thus, urges this Court for setting aside the impugned order being illegal, perverse, much less, erroneous.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book. The paragraph (v) of the preliminary objection in the unamended written statement reads thus:- (v) That in July 2008 Pooran Singh and his family members asked defendant No.1 to come to the Court premises at Rewari for preparation of some affidavits and papers for obtaining physical possession of the plot. Defendant No.1 carried the original allotment letter, receipt etc. and other papers and the same were taken by them for getting prepared affidavit etc. However, suddenly they stated that the original allotment letter etc. had been lost. Defendant No.1 tried her best to search the said documents but the same could not be found whereupon she made a complaint about it to the local police but the said documents could not be traced. It appears that Pooran Singh and his family members had retained or got hold all the said original documents and plaintiff is trying to misuse the same. Defendant No.1 worked in the house of the said Pooran Singh as maid servant for some time more. Defendant No.1 came to know that Pooran Singh had become quite ill. In the meanwhile, defendant No.1 obtained actual physical possession of the said plot from defendant No.3 with the help of her relatives and conveyance deed bearing vasika No.15428 dated 01.10.2008 was executed and registered in her favour by HUDA. Whereas in the amendment written statement reads thus:- (v) That defendant No.1 worked in the house of the said Pooran Singh as mate servant till the year 2007. Defendant No.1 came to know that Sh. Pooran Singh had become quite ill. In the meanwhile, defendant No.1 obtained actual physical possession of the said plot from defendant No.3 with the help of her relatives and conveyance deed bearing vasika No.15428 dated 01.10.2008 was executed and registered in her favour of HUDA. ;