VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned trial Court vide which application made by the petitioner-defendant for amendment of the written statement. under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) has been declined.
(2.) BY way of amendment the petitioner has sought to give particulars of fraud alleged to have been played upon him by the plaintiff and his partymen. It was claimed that the petitioner would like to add para No. 3-A in the written statement which reads as under :- "3A. That the defendant No. 1 has been defrauded and cheated by the plaintiff and their partymen in collusion with each other. The defendant No. 1 had litigation regarding the property at Civil Courts Rajpura and the pending cases were as follows :- 1. O. Parkash and Ors. v. Jai Singh 2. Jarnail Singh v. Jai Singh 3. Satwinder Singh v. Jai Singh 4. State v. Jai Singh 5. Jai Singh v. Mohan Singh 6. Lachman Das v. Jai Singh 7. Surinder Nath v. Jai Singh That the defendant No. 1 had engaged different lawyers at Rajpura such as S. Man Singh Adv. Sh. Rajesh Joshi and Nashinder Deep Singh Adv. and the defendant No. 1 was contesting his cases regarding the land situated in village Madhopur and Rauni which falls within the limits of Dera Bassi and within the jurisdiction of the civil Courts at Rajpura. The defendant No. 1 had never executed any contract of sale in favour of the present plaintiff Man Singh but the plaintiff in collusion with his partymen had hatched a conspiracy with his partymen and after the finalization of the above mentioned case 4 suits for specific performance of contract have been filed against defendant No. 1. Those suits have been filed by Man Singh s/o Banga Singh r/o village Charnia Tehsil Kalka, second suit filed by Gurcharanjeet Singh son of Balbir Singh resident of village Moga (Punjab), 3rd suit has been filed by Amrik Singh son of Gurbachan Singh resident of Gobind Colony, Rajpura who happened to be working as a car driver of Man Singh Advocate now deceased and the 4th suit has been filed by Sukhjit Kaur daughter of Harpal Singh of Village Bakhopeer, Tehsil Sangrur. All these persons are co-conspirators and are closely connected with each other. Gurcharanjeet Singh had land at village Bakhopeer and Sukhjit Kaur is residing at Village Bakhopeer and at present Gobind Colony, Rajpura whereas Man Singh Advocate now deceased with whom Amrik Singh had been working as driver also resides in Gobind Colony, Rajpura. That the civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract had been filed by the above mentioned persons against the defendant No. 1 after the finalisation of the above mentioned cases pending in the Courts at Rajpura. During this period the defendant No. 1 was ill and his wife was suffering from cancer who had died. So during that period the defendant No. 1 could not properly work and attend his cases and the above mentioned persons somehow or the other had stolen or obtained the papers from the files of those cases and they fraudulently prepared fictitious contracts of sales regarding the property of defendant No. 1 even without paying a single penny to defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 being an handicapped, disabled and cannot properly walk as he is having disability to the extent of 50%. He is also heart and sugar (Diabetes) patient and was unable to attend his cases. He is aged about 76 years and he was under treatment of PGI and Civil Hospital Dera Bassi and private Heart Institute. In this manner the contract of sale mentioned in the plaint is a forged and fictitious document and is result of forgery played upon the defendant No. 1 by the respective plaintiffs when they felt that the litigation of Jai Singh with 3rd person have come to an end. So the agreement in question is the result of fraud played upon the defendant No. 1 as mentioned above with a guilty intention to grab the property of defendant No. 1 worth lacs of rupees without paying even a single penny and as such the agreement in question is liable to be ignored as the same is the result of fraud and criminal conspiracy by the plaintiff and their partymen with each other. The same lawyer is not to contest the cases for possession by way of specific performance of contract against defendant No. 1. So in this manner the defendant No. 1 has been defrauded and cheated and as such the agreement in question is liable to be ignored." Said application was opposed by the plaintiff and it was pleaded that no amendment could be allowed after the commencement of trial. On merit also the allegations were denied. It was also pleaded that the amendment sought was not essential for the just and proper adjudication of the case.
(3.) LEARNED trial Court noticed that the petitioner in para No. 1 of the written statement had already taken a plea regarding the document being forged and fictitious. Para No. 1 of the written statement originally filed reads as under : "In fact, the alleged agreement dated 12-4-1999 is a forged and fictitious document prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with his previous counsel, in order to grab the property of defendant No. 1. The alleged agreement dated 12-4-1999 has been prepared/forged on an unstamped paper. The alleged agreement dated 12-4-1999 has been typed on blank paper, on which the signatures of defendant No. 1 may be available for filing reply/application in any case by this counsel who was conducting his cases from the year 1985 to 1999. The previous counsel of defendant No. 1 in many cases was S. Man Singh Advocate, his son S. Nachinder Deep Singh, Advocate, Rajpura at present Advocate at Chandigarh. Defendant No. 1 never agreed to sell the land in dispute to the plaintiff." ;