1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6607/2006 M/s Manak Chand Rajesh Kumar Sankhla Vs. M/s.Jain Brohers & another Date of Order :: 4th March 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Sandeep Saruparia for the petitioner Mr.Ravi Bhansali for the respondent No.1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge,Gulabpura in Civil Suit No.08/2003 rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement as moved by the defendant-petitioner essentially seeking to carry out the correction in the particulars of the date as mentioned in paragraph-10 of the written statement stating it to be a typographical error; and according to the petitioner, the correct date ought to have been mentioned as '25-4-2000' in place of '24-4-2003'. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application with reference to the contentions as urged on behalf of the plaintiff about the dealings between the parties and on the consideration that the amendment would bring about change in the nature of the suit. During the course of submissions, after examining the pleadings of the parties particularly the averments as taken in 2 paragraph 11 of the written statement in continuity with the averments taken in the preceding paragraph suggesting some settlement between the parties and then about the defendant allegedly making payment in pursuance of such settlement in the years 2000 and 2001, this Court made observations that prima facie the propositions as stated by the learned trial Judge do not appear to be in sound exercise of jurisdiction and rather appear to be tainted with perversity. Learned counsel Mr.Ravi Bhansali appearing for the plaintiff after taking instructions, in all fairness, has conceded that the impugned order dated 17.10.2006 in rejection of the prayer of amendment cannot possibly be justified by the plaintiff- respondent and stated no objection if the amendment prayed for is allowed but then, made the prayer that in view of the frame of pleadings as would appear now after the amendment, the plaintiff-respondent be permitted to file replication in that regard. Learned counsel Mr.Sandeep Saruparia appearing for the petitioner, in equal fairness, did not put this proposition into contention. In view of the submissions as made by learned counsel for the parties more or less in consensus, this writ petition deserves to be allowed with necessary observations and further orders. 3 Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.10.2006 is set aside and the application as moved by the petitioner on 21.01.2004 for amendment of the written statement is allowed. Amended written statement shall be filed by the defendant-petitioner within 15 days from today. The plaintiff shall be entitled to submit replication in relation to the averments as they would stand now in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the written statement. The plaintiff may file such replication within 15 days of filing of amended written statement by the defendant. The trial may proceed thereafter further with framing of additional issue/s, if so required. Record be returned immediately. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK