C.R.No.3672 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3672 of 2004 Date of decision:21st April, 2011 Dalbir Singh and others ..... Petitioners VERSUS Sagaljit Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.V.G.Dogra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Boparai, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioners impugn an order dated 20.03.2004, passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Nakodar, dismissing their application for amendment of the written statement. The respondents filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of a sale deed dated 01.08.1961. The respondents also prayed that the sale deed dated 19.12.1986, allegedly executed by Buta Singh in favour of the defendants/petitioners, be declared null and void as after executing the sale deed in favour of the respondents on 01.08.1961, Buta Singh had no subsisting interest, that he could validly transfer to the petitioners. The petitioners filed a written statement denying the execution of the sale deed dated 01.08.1961 and in turn placed reliance upon a sale deed executed on 19.12.1986 in their favour. C.R.No.3672 of 2004 -2- During pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the written statement by pleading that Buta Singh sold the land in dispute to Bhagat Singh son of Mangal Singh on 28.04.1950. The sale deed was challenged by Bishan Singh and Khem Singh, the petitioners predecessors, by filing civil suit no.216 of 1950 on 19.07.1950, for preemption of the suit land. Another suit for preemption was filed by Prem Singh and Kishan Singh. Both suits were decreed by the then Sub Judge, Third Class, Nakodar on the basis of a lawful compromise effected between the vendee and the plaintiffs. As a result, a decree for possession to the extent of 16 kanals 0 marla was passed in favour of Bishan Singh and for 16 kanals in favour of Kishan Singh. As such, Buta Singh was left with no legal right in the suit land, that he could have transferred to the respondents on 01.08.1961. The petitioners also averred that as they were not aware of these facts, a fresh sale deed was executed by Buta Singh on 19.12.1986. The respondents filed a reply, pleading that such an amendment cannot be allowed as the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise contradictory pleas that are in essence destructive of the pleas already raised. The trial court considered the matter in its entirety and dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment alters the very foundation of the written statement, is contradictory and destructive of pleas already raised and is even otherwise delayed. C.R.No.3672 of 2004 -3- Counsel for the petitioners submits that facts relating to the sale deed and the preemption decree dated 08.08.1951 were not in their knowledge. The mere fact that the petitioners were unable to raise this plea, for want of knowledge, cannot deprive them of their right to bring before the trial court their true defence. The fact that Buta Singh suffered a decree on 08.08.1951 goes to the root of the controversy. In view of the decree dated 08.08.1951 Buta Singh stood divested of any right to execute a sale deed on 01.08.1961 in favour of the respondents. It is further argued that there is no question of withdrawal of an admission or of raising a contradictory plea that is destructive of the plea already raised. All that the petitioners pray is that the true facts based upon a judgment and decree of a civil court should be placed before the court for adjudication. In support of his argument that all amendments which are necessary for determination of the real controversy in the suit should be allowed, counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.N.Pillai V/s P.Pillai and another, 2000(3) Civil Court Cases, 165 (SC) Counsel for the respondents however submits that by way of the amendment the petitioners seek to plead a new set of facts which are not only contradictory to the original defence but also destructive of the pleas already raised. It is argued that the initial plea is based upon a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners on 19.12.1986 whereas the plea sought to be raised, by amendment is based upon an alleged C.R.No.3672 of 2004 -4- preemption decree. It is argued that the change in stand, from one of denial of the execution of sale deed dated 01.08.1961 to a plea that the vendor had no right to execute this sale deed, would amount to raising a contradictory plea destructive of the plea already raised and was therefore rightly rejected by the trial court. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Buta Singh son of Jiwan Singh was the owner of the land in dispute. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership on the basis of a sale deed dated 01.08.1961. The petitioners/defendants filed a written statement denying the existence of the sale deed dated 01.08.1961 and in turn set up a sale deed dated 19.12.1986. By way of the proposed amendment, the petitioners seek to incorporate pleadings that Buta Singh suffered a decree in favour of the petitioners predecessors on 08.08.1951, thus divesting him of any right or title in the suit land that he could validly transfer to the respondents on 01.08.1961. Apart from the fact that the application for amendment was belated, the plea raised by the petitioners in their application for amendment, is in stark contrast to the plea already raised in the written statement. In the written statement on record, the petitioners invoke a sale deed executed by Buta Singh on 19.12.1986 thereby admitting that Buta Singh was owner of the suit land in the year 1986. By way of the amendment, the petitioners would urge that Buta Singh had no right not only to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondents on C.R.No.3672 of 2004 -5- 01.08.1961 but no right to execute the sale deed in their favour on 19.12.1996. The stand taken by the petitioners is not only contradictory but at such variance from their stand in the written statement as to destructive of the original plea. The petitioners would also be able to withdraw an admission, of Buta Singh's ownership emanating from the sale deed dated 19.12.1986 admitting the ownership of Buta Singh in 1986. It is true that a court should allow all such pleas as are necessary for deciding a pending lis and resort to technicalities or procedural impediments, should be discouraged. But where the plea sought to be raised, by way of amendment, whether in a written statement or in a plaint, so inherently contradicts the original plea as to be destructive thereof or leads to the withdrawal of an admission such a plea cannot be allowed by way of amendment. To permit a party to alter his fundamental stand once a suit has commenced and trial is in progress would cause serious prejudice to the opposite party. In the view of what has been stated hereinabove and as the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. 21st April, 2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE