C.R.No.4789 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.4789 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on 25.11.2010. Dildar Khan --Petitioner vs. Surjit Kaur -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Rajeev Gupta,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr. H.R.Nohria,Advocate,for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J,(Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.5.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Barnala, by which an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') by the defendant/petitioner for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of redemption, whereas the defendant had taken a plea of oral sale on the basis of a writing dated 07.5.2010 by the plaintiff in his favour for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-..Admittedly, in the said suit, one of the issues framed was as to “Whether the defendant has purchased the house in dispute after execution of mortgage deed dated 3.11.2003 for the+ consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- from plaintiff and is having paid Rs.2,30,000/- as part C.R.No.4789 of 2010 2 payment of sale consideration and on this account, the plaintiff is not entitled to possession by way of redemption of the house in dispute ? OPD” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 07.5.2010, the plaintiff had himself executed a document regarding payment of sale which is sought to be pleaded but the trial court has dismissed the application on the ground that only facts are to be pleaded not the evidence. As the evidence of the defendant is yet to start and case is now fixed for 3.12.2010 but if this fact is not allowed to be pleaded, he would suffer irreparable loss. It is,therefore, prayed that the writing dated 07.5.2010 which is subsequent to the filing of the written statement may be allowed to be pleaded in written statement as the said writing was not in existence earlier. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the document dated 7.5.2010 is a manufactured document which may not be allowed to be pleaded in the written statement. He further submits that an issue is already there which is to be proved by the defendant and at the time of leading his evidence, he may rely upon the document which is sought to be pleaded in the written statement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Insofar as law of amendment is concerned, the Courts are generally liberal in respect of amendment of the written statement as the defendant has given a writing to take even inconsistent plea to defeat the right of the plaintiff. In this case, although a plea has already been taken that there is oral sale in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff but after the issue has been framed, the document has come into being which may or may not be manufactured document, is to be seen by the trial Court at the time of final disposal, but the said document can be allowed to be pleaded in the written statement. The plaintiff is thus C.R.No.4789 of 2010 3 entitled to file replication to the amended written statement. In view thereof, the present revision petition is allowed. However subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as cost which shall be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. 25.11.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge