Civil Revision No. 6515 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6515 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 21th, 2011 Teja Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus Bhajan Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The plaintiffs have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.9.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, vide which the application of the defendants, for amendment of the written statement and counter claim, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been allowed. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from land of khasra no. 160//6, 14, 15 and 17 bearing khewat no. 577, 580, khatauni no. 1251 and 1258, situated within the revenue estate of village Nawe Rode, Tehsil Bagha Purana, District Moga Civil Revision No. 6515 of 2011 2 .. as per jamabandi 2002-2003. The defendants not only resisted the suit of the plaintiffs but also filed a counter claim wherein they took a specific stand that there is passage in khasra nos. 360 and 309 and the plaintiffs want to usurp and encroach upon the said passage. On the plea that khasra No. 360 has been wrongly mentioned in place of khasra no. 702, the defendants have sought permission to amend the written statement as well as the counter claim. They have claimed that khasra no. 360 was mentioned due to the fact that the revenue Patwari did not mention khasra number in the Aks shajra and so, the clerical mistake has occurred on the part of the defendants. They have, therefore, prayed for substituting khasra No. 702 for 360 in the written statement and counter claim. The application has been opposed claiming that by way of the amendment, the defendants cannot be allowed to change the nature of the defence or introduce a new case in the counter claim. It is denied that the mistake is a clerical one. According to them, the defendants have specifically pleaded about the 5 karam wide passage in the written statement as well as in the counter claim. It is further averred that defendants No.1 and 3 had filed application under section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baghapurana against the plaintiffs and sons of plaintiff No.1 for removing the illegal encroachment over the Civil Revision No. 6515 of 2011 3 .. rasta. The said application was dismissed on 20.11.2008. The other averments of the defendants are denied. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court allowed the application vide order dated 10.9.2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed. I have heard Mr.Pankaj Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the plea taken for permission to allow the amendment of the written statement in the application is different from the reason, on which learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has allowed the application. According to him, in the application it has been mentioned that the concerned Patwari of revenue department had not mentioned khasra number in the Aks Shajra and, therefore, khasra No. 360 was wrongly mentioned. In para No. 4 of the order, learned trial court has mentioned that the amendment sought is of a clerical mistake because the defendants had filed written statement on the basis of jamabandi, which has been issued by concerned revenue authority and the mistake was discovered when it was found that wrong jamabandi has been given. In my opinion, this difference makes no cause for interference with the impugned order. Amendment of written statement is at a different footing than the amendment of plaint. In Civil Revision No. 6515 of 2011 4 .. case of amendment of a written statement, even a plea inconsistent with the plea already taken can be introduced by way of amendment. Here, the defendants claim that they have discovered their mistake and what they claim as passage bears khasra No. 702 instead of 360. How they came to know the mistake is not that material. The fact is that they claim the said property as passage and have alleged that the plaintiffs are out to encroach upon the same. They have now come to know that the said passage bears khasra No. 702 and they want to substitute this khasra number for khasra No. 360 in the written statement and counter claim. For these reasons, I find no irregularity much less illegality in the impugned order, justifying interference with the same. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 21th, 2011 som