Balbir Singh vs Sahjoo

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has directed against the order dated 7.4.1997 passed by Additional Civil Judge (SD) Palwal. By this order, the learned trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitionerdefendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of para 3 of the written statement. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent.

Mr. Kamboj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in original para 3 of the written statement, order of completion of the building was inadvertently mentioned as 1984 instead of 1981 and it was purely a typographical mistake which the defendant seeks to correct by way of amendment. He further submits that in original para3 of the written statement itself, it was mentioned that it is wrong that the period of ten years has not expired since its completion of construction. He, therefore, contends that the amendment sought is bona fide.

Mr. Sihota, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that the alleged typographical mistake is not bona fide as by changing the year of completion of the building from 1984 to 1981, the petitionerdefendant wants to bring the case under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and has to be set aside. In original para3 of the written statement, it has been clearly stated that "it is also wrong that period of 10 years has not expired since its completion of construction." From this it is clear that intention of the defendant in the written statement was that the period of ten years has already expired from the completion of the construction and as a matter of fact even in the preliminary objection it has been stated that the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 are applicable to the present matter. From this the intention of the defendant is clear and the year 1984 appears to have been inadvertent mentioned instead of 1981.

The learned counsel for the respondent at this stage submits that the amendment has been sought after the statements of two DWs have been recorded. From the statement, I find that in those statements, the defendants had again taken the stand that the building in question was completed in the year 1981. The statements rather support the contention of the petitioner and not the respondent.

In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.4.1997 is set aside with no orders as to costs.