Mahesh Singh Jamwal @APPELLANT@Hash Sheikh Mohd. Aslam and anr

During the pendency of the suit, an application appears to have been filed by the defendants/respondents herein for amending the written statement, which was otherwise filed within the time prescribed. The court below after considering the application for amendment to the written statement allowed the same by virtue of order dated 18.05.2018. It appears that the respondent herein along with the application for amendment had also annexed therein the “proposed” amended written statement. While allowing the application by virtue of order dated 18.05.2018 the Court held as under:-

“….The scope of amendment of written statement is far larger than the amendment of plaint. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the amended written statement is taken on record. Application stands disposed of u/r and form part of the main suit u/r.”

It appears that since the defendant had used the word “proposed” written statement when the “proposed written statement” was filed along with the application earlier, he thought it necessary to set the matters straight and, therefore, filed a formal written statement without usage of the word “proposed”. When this was done, an application came to be filed by the plaintiff, who sought rejection of the amended written statement filed by the defendant being time barred in terms of Order 6 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, which envisages that the amended written statement be filed within 14 days from the date of order granting relief to amend.

It was urged that since no extension of time had been granted by the Court when the defendant filed his application on 17.07.2018 to place on record the amended written statement, therefore, the same ought not to have been taken on record.

The trial court, however, by virtue of order impugned rejected the application on the ground that the amended written statement had already been taken on record when the application was allowed vide order dated 18.05.2018 and the only difference in the amended written statement which was filed on 17.07.2018 was to the extent of the word “proposed” had been deleted. In that view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the Law, the Court below proceeded to dismiss the application.

Mr. K.K.Pangotra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the view taken by the court below was erroneous in Law. It was stated that if the view of the court below is accepted then there was absolutely no occasion for the Court below to allow the defendant yet again to place on record a copy of the amended written statement.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, while allowing the application for amendment of the written statement, the “proposed written statement” had also been filed with the application by the defendants. The Court below vide order dated 18.05.2018 noticed that fact when the written statement was taken on record. What was done subsequently by the defendants/applicants was only as a matter of abundant caution with a view to ensure that the word “proposed” did not reflect in the written statement. Strictly speaking there was no need for the defendants to file the subsequent written statement deleting the word “proposed” amended written statement. Yet having gone through the order impugned, I am of the opinion that assuming the applicants/defendants had filed the said application, no prejudice, at all, was caused to the interest of the plaintiff. What was done by the defendants was a matter of abundant caution.

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Court below. According, the writ petition stands dismissed.