Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ application filed for quashing the order dated 14.2.2008 in Title Suit No. 31 of 2005 passed by 1st Munsif, Dhanbad whereby he rejected the prayer of defendant/petitioner to amend the written statement on the ground that it amounts to withdrawal of admission.
(2.) It is submitted by Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact by the proposed amendment, no question of withdrawal of any admission arise. He submits that at paragraph no. 14 and 15 of written statement petitioner/defendant made following statement:- 14. There is no whisper in the plaint, the bonafide action taken by the purchaser to get the permission and deed completed. 15. As already stated it is the purchaser who gets all formalities done to get the sale deed registered and get the application for permission signed by the vender in order to complete the transaction within the stipulated period and the plaintiff has failed to do so and as such, cannot taken the advantage of inter-pretation clause 4 of the agreement in the favour and wait for an indefinite period.
(3.) It is then submitted that the petitioner wants to amend the written statement to the following extent:- (a) After para 15 of the written statement the following sentences may be added: "As stated hereinabove an application under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act for permission of the competent authority to transfer a vacant land is a mere formality and even if the required permission is not accorded by the competent authority, a deed of transfer/conveyance can be executed after expiry of 60 days. As per the prevailing convention a purchaser is required to obtain permission although application for permission is signed by the Vendor. In fact the defendant was asked by the plaintiff and her husband to sign the application form for obtaining permission under Section 26 of the Urban Ceiling Act on the date of -2- execution of agreement itself and after putting her signature the defendant gave the said application form to the plaintiff's husband for obtaining the required permission and follow-up actions. The plaintiff and her husband under-took to inform the defendant Vendor after permission to execute registered sale deed and it was known to both the parties that even if required permission is not given within a period of 60 days from the date of application, in that event the registered sale deed will be got executed after expiry of 60 days. The defendant has since recently come to learn that defendant's application for permission was submitted before the competent authority under the Act just after the date of agreement i.e. 26.07.2000 and the Deputy Collector in-charge of Urban Land Ceiling at Dhanbad Collectorate sent letter No. 2634 dated 31.7.2000 to the Anchal Adhikari Dhanbad for report. This fact was well within the knowledge of plaintiff and her husband and the plaintiff was required to get the sale deed executed from the defendant within the period stipulated in the agreement but the plaintiff deliberately failed and neglected to pay the balance consideration money and get the registered sale deed executed from the defendant within the stipulated period and allowed the agreement dated 26.7.2000 to elapse and die its natural death".;