IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP MO No. 2 of 2008 Date of decision July 18, 2008. __________________________________________________________ Krishan Dass ….Petitioner Versus Ghanshyam and others ….Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 CMP MO No. 2of 2008 For the Petitioner : Shri Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala , Advocate __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This is the plaintiff’s petition against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ghumarwin allowing the application of defendants under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend written statement. The allegations made in application are that in the changed circumstances, the stand taken in the written statement already filed is against his interest as the plaintiff and defendant No.2 have resiled from their purported proposal of compromise etc. and signatures of the applicant were taken on blank papers abusing the trust reposed by him in the defendant. Learned trial Court, after consideration, held that since the case was at the initial stage, and in the changed circumstances, the allegations made by other party had to be adjudicated on evidence, and thus allowed the application. The plaintiff-petitioner now assail this order on a number of grounds. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The reasoning of the learned trial Court cannot be faulted with. The Court has correctly appreciated the principles of law applicable and granted permission. However, no specific amendment had been sought in the written statement, but a blanket permission to file a separate written statement was granted. Even granting that pleadings should not be liberally construed, the application cannot be accepted as one under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as in such an application, it has to be set out concisely the amendment sought. When the applicant/defendant does not wish to maintain his written statement as filed, he should have applied for permission to file a fresh written statement or permission to amend the present written statement with the precise ground, set out therein to be incorporated and then asked for permission to be treated as written statement on his individual behalf. This petition is accordingly allowed with following directions:- That the respondent will make an appropriate application in accordance with law seeking to adopt the already amended written statement filed by him which stands accepted/allowed by learned trial Court. On such an application being filed, the learned trial court shall take the fresh written statement on record as being the written statement filed by applicant in his individual capacity. The trial of the case shall then proceed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. July 18,2008 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge