AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhagwati Prasad, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of the trial court refusing amendment. Amendment was sought for by the defendants in their written statement The only fact which they want to incorporate in the written statement pertained to a stand taken by the plaintiff in some other proceeding which came to the notice of the petitioners subsequently. The petitioners came to know this after filing of their written statement. The suit in question is suit for injunction and possession of a property regarding which, in the present suit, the plaintiff has alleged that it has come by inheritance but in another pleading, he has alleged that property has come by way of ''Bakhshishnama'' and'' he has acquired right over the property. The two stands taken in different proceedings are of different nature. Incorporation of these facts would be in the interest of justice. This will help in deciding the issue arising out in between the parties.
The respondents have urged that the trial court has permitted the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff in this regard. It has also been argued that the documents narrating these facts were sought to be produced under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. The production of the same was refused by the trial court.
I have considered the rival submissions. The fact sought to be incorporated has come to the notice of the defendants after filing of the written statement. A divergent stand is obvious in referred pleadings. Unless these facts are brought on record, proper adjudication is not possible. In this view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the order of the trial court and direct the trial court to permit amendment as sought for by the petitioners. The order impugned is set aside and the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioners to amend the written statement and then proceed with the matter.
With these observations, the revision petition is allowed.