Gurnam Singh, J. - (1.) IN a suit, filed by Het Ram plaintiff -respondent, for declaration that he is a co sharer in the house in dispute and that the decree dated 25th May, 1976 is inoperative qua him, the defendants submitted an application for the amendment of their written statement. In the original written statement filed by them, they had pleaded that the property in dispute was not ancestral and that the plaintiff had no concern with the same whatsoever. They had also denied that the plaintiff was in possession of a part of the house in dispute By the proposed amendment, they (defendants) wanted to take up the plea that the house in possession of the plaintiff at Sonepat was joint Hindu Family Property and that there was a family partition in which that house was given to him.
(2.) THE trial Sub Judge disallowed the application of the defendants for amendment of their written statement, mainly on the grounds that they wanted to take a contradictory plea and that the pleas now sought to be introduced were afterthought. Hari Chand and Dilbagh alias Ram Mehar defendants have filed this civil revision against the order of the sub Judge dated 16th, May 1977, declining their request for amendment of the written statement. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the property belonging to the parties was ancestral, that a family partition had taken place, that the plaintiff had been given the house at Sonepat while the house in dispute had been given to the defendants and that their father had retained five plots in village Silana. Further according to the learned counsel the plea which is sought to be taken up by the defendants now is not contradictory nor it is an afterthought because para 6 (f) of the plaint in which the plaintiff had pleaded that no family arrangement ever took place, had been denied by them. Further according to the learned counsel for the petitioners even if the defendants are negligent and careless for not pleading partition in the written statement, that omission will not be a bar in allowing the amendment. He relied upon Civil Revision No. 850 of 1970, decided on April 20, 1971, Raghvir Prashad etc. v. Chet Ram, 1971 C. L.J. 612, wherein it has been held that : However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice to the other side which can be compensated for by costs. A plaintiff may add a new cause of action and the defendant may add a new defence. Even a new case may be allowed to be introduced. Thus the mere fact, that the cause of action has been changed, is no ground, per se for disallowing the amendment.
(3.) HE also placed reliance upon Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon : A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1267, wherein it has been observed that : Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.;