CR No. 7573 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7573 of 2009 Date of Decision : 07.09.2010 Teka .......... Petitioner Versus Raj Singh & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 13.11.2009, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Jhajjar, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement has been declined. The plaintiff petitioner filed a suit by pleaded para 3 & 5 of the plaint as under :- “5. Para No.3 :- That prior to consolidation the residential property was partitioned andin that partition property shown by marked AIHD and property CHDE fell to the share of plaintiff's father whereas property CR No. 7573 of 2009 -2- ***** shown by mark GHCF and property shown by mark IBCH and property mark IBCH fell to the share of defendant and since then, plaintiff and defendant are exclusive owner of the portion, felling to the share of each party. Para No.5 :- That defendant was requested many times not to interfere into the peace full possession of the property of the plaintiff as mentioned in para no. 4 of the plaint and nor to encroach upon the same by raising construction but defendant is not adhering to the request of plaintiffs rather he has refused to do so on 14.12.2002. Hence cause of action arose for filing the present suit.” The petitioner filed reply to para nos. 3 & 5 of the plaint, which reads as under :- “Para No.3, That para No.3 of the plaint is wrong and hence denied. That no partition was done. The plaintiffs are only in possession of property AIHD and plaintiffs are not owner in possession of property marked by letters GHDE. The defendant is owner in possession of property marked by letters IBCH and CDEF. Para No.5: That the para no.5 of the plaint is totally wrong and hence denied. The defendant has stored the material to construct his property mark by letters CDEF and IBCH. The cause of action of the plaintiff is self made. CR No. 7573 of 2009 -3- ***** On the date when the plaintiff / respondents filed the replication, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the written statement, to explain that in fact the plaintiff was in possession of the property marked by IJBR and not AIHD as mentioned earlier. The amendment sought by the petitioner reads as under :- “Para No.3 that the para No.3 of the plaint is wrong and hence denied, that no partition can be done. The plaintiffs are only in possession of property marked by IJBR (as per site plan applicant / defendant ) and plaintiffs are not owner in possession of property marked by letters CHIB (As per site plan of plaintiffs) and marked CDEF as per site plan of defendant. The defendant is owner in possession of property marked by letters ABCF and CDEF as per site plan of defendant / Applicant and not property marked by letters ABCH as per site plan of plaintiff. Para No.5 :- That para no.5 of the plaint is totally wrong and hence denied. The defendant has stored the material to construct his property marked by letters ABCF and CDEF as per site plan of defendant and not the property marked by letters IBCH as per site plan of plaintiff. The cause of action of the plaintiff is self made. Site plan of defendant is attached herewith.” The learned trial Court rejected the application on the CR No. 7573 of 2009 -4- ***** ground, that the defendant / petitioner had admitted, that the plaintiffs were owner in possession of the suit property,therefore, defendants were now estopped from withdrawing the admission. The petitioner, therefore, could not be allowed to fill in lacuna. The learned trial Court further held, that the amendment sought would cause prejudice to the plaintiff / petitioner. The order passed by the learned trial Court can not be sustained. It is well settled law, that the law of amendment is to be liberally construed, and party can be allowed to amend the pleadings, for adjudication of the lis, and furthermore the facts which are necessary for disposal of the dispute, can be pleaded by amendment. Admittedly, when the application was moved by the petitioner, the trial had not commenced, therefore, the case of the petitioner was governed by the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. The learned trial Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had admitted the ownership of the plaintiff respondent in the written statement. This finding on the face of it is incorrect. A party can be allowed to withdraw the admission or explain it. The reading of the proposed amendment would show that the correction was merely in the nature of typographical nature to explain the exact position. Consequently, this revision is allowed, the impugned CR No. 7573 of 2009 -5- ***** order is set aside. The application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 is allowed, but with no order as to costs. 07.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE