JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by Pannalal defendant No. 3, against an order of the Civil Judge, Bikaner, holding that the additional written statement filed by him should have been confined to the amended portion of the plaint only.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that they let out a shop to Nemichand, defendant No. 1, and that the latter sub-let it to his nephews defendant No. 2 and 3, who are now carrying on business in the shop. THE suit was instituted in 1965 for the ejectment of all the 3 defendants from the shop. Defendants No. 2 and 3 contested the suit on the ground that Nemichand was still carrying on business in the shop and he had not parted with possession in their favour, The plaintiffs examined an Inspector of the Food Department, who stated that a shop was being run in the premises in suit under the name and style of Kedarnath Pannalal. Kedarnath and Pannalal, defendants No. 2 and 3 then applied for an amendment of the written statement so as to put forward the case that Nemi Chand surrendered the tenancy in 1957 and the shop was let out to them as tenants in chief on the same terms on which Nemichand was holding it. This amendment was disallowed by the trial court. When the case was at the stage of arguments the plaintiffs applied for amendment of para 5 of the plaint. It was allowed. In the original paragraph it was mentioned that the notice terminating the tenancy was issued under sec. 111 (h) of the Transfer of Property Act. In the amended para 5 it is alleged that it was terminated under cls. (g) and (h) of sec. 1ll of the Transfer of Property Act. The only objection raised on behalf of the defendants to the amendment was that they wanted some costs to be awarded to them. The court awarded Rs. 10/-as costs for the amendment and passed an order on 14-10-68 asking the defendants to file an amended written statement on 11-11-68. When the amended written statement was filed in which some new pleas were taken the plaintiffs objected to it and the trial court held following the decision in Dittu Ram vs. Amar Chand (1) that the additional written statement should be confined to the amended portion of the plaint only. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that the order of the trial court is erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following two decisions of the Punjab High Court - Girdharilal vs. Krishan Datt (2 ). New Bank of India vs. Smt. Raj Rani (3 ). On behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on Ditturam vs. Amarchand (1) and Ganba Paiku vs. Ganpatrao (4 ). In Girdharilal vs. Krishan Datt (2) the plaint was amended in the trial court and an amended written statement was filed following the amendment of the plaint. No objection was taken to this written statement in the trial court. The appellate court however rejected the additional pleas taken in the amended written statement. The amendment of the plaint in that case was however of such a nature that it could not be said that the amended written statement went beyond what was needed as reply to the amended plaint. The observations made in this case that there is no rule of law to restrict the defendant when he is called upon to file a written statement to an amended plaint to contest the plaintiff's claim to any particular pleas is thus obiter. In New Bank of India vs. Smt. Raj Rani (3) the suit was brought for a mandatory injunction directing the Bank to deliver possession of a fixed deposit receipt. During the pendency of the suit, according to the plaintiff, the fixed deposit receipt had natured and the plaint was amended so as to ask for an alternative relief in the shape of the amount due on the fixed deposit receipt. An amended written statement was filed by the Bank in which the date of making the fixed deposited receipt was different from that in the original written statement. It was explained on behalf of the Bank that one of its officers had colluded with the plaintiff and had committed fraud in respect of the fixed deposit receipt in question and on the true facts and circumstances having been disclosed the change in the date had been necessitated and the same had been incorporated in the amended written statement. In this case also the amended written statement was really a reply to the amended part of the plaint. In the amended part of the plaint it was alleged that the fixed deposit receipt had matured and in the amended written statement it was alleged that it had not matured. The observation made in this case that the crucial test in deciding whether a fresh written statement should be confined to the amended portion of the plaint only is what is the nature of the order passed by the court when permitting a fresh plaint to be filed is not applicable to the present case as the trial court itself has later on made clear what it had intended by its earlier order dated 14-10-68. O. 6, r. 17 does not contain any provision entitling the defendant to file a fresh written statement when the plaint is allowed to be amended. An additional or amended written statement is filed under the provisions of O. 8, r. 9, which runs as follows - "no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same. " The latter part of the above rules is applicable as it was the court which required an additional written statement from the defendants. The court intended that this written statement should be confined to the amended part of the plaint as is clear from its subsequent order, which has been challenged in revision. In such cases the court should make it clear at the time of passing its order whether the written statement is to be confined to the amended part of the plaint. The court may require an additional written statement to be filed under O. 8, r. 9 at the time of allowing an amendment of the plaint or it may not requires such an additional written statement. So it is for the court to confine the additional written statement to the amendment of the part of the plaint only or not, whether or not in particular case the Court should confine the additional written statement to the amended part of the plaint or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case and no hard or fast rule can be laid down. In the present case the amendment sought relates to termination of the tenancy on the ground of forfeiture. The additional written statement of the defendants should be confined to this ground. They should get an opportunity of filling such a written statement. I accordingly allow the revision application in part, and modify the order of the trial court. The defendants are given an opportunity of filing the additional written statement confined to the amended portion of the plaint only. This written statement shall be filed within 15 days from today.
(3.) IN the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of this revision application. .;