Smt. Harjit Grewal and Others vs Dr. Vinod Kumar Batra and Another

G.C. Garg, J.—Dr. Vinod Kumar and another filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated April 13, 1978 of plot measuring 5 Kanals 8 Marias situated in Jalandhar. The Petitioners who are the defendants in the suit sought amendment of the written statement which was granted by the trial Court and after framing of the necessary issues, the suit was ultimately decreed and decree for specific performance of the agreement was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The defendants preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court which is now pending final disposal in the-court of the District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendants made another application for amendment of the written statement. The application was dismissed by the learned District Judge by his order dated January 22, 1991 by observing that the point which is being agitated is already covered by the issue No. 11 and that the amendment of the pleading is not to be allowed as a matter of right especially when the parties had failed to take plea at a proper time.

It is against this order of the learned District Judge whereby the application for amendment had been dismissed, the present revision petition has been filed.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently contended that the only amendment sought in the written statement is purely legal and even the Plaintiffs in reply to the application had stated that the plea sought to be raised could be argued and there was no need of amending the written statement. The learned Counsel has stated that he now confines his application for amendment of the written statement only to the following extent:

Even if the parties had entered into any such contract, the contract is void ab-initio as it defeats the provisions of law, especially Section 5(3) and 42 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation.) Act, 1976.

The submission of the learned Counsel is that the aforesaid amendment is purely legal and no evidence is required thereon and he undertakes not to produce any evidence for this purpose. He will only address arguments on this matter after an issue is framed in that behalf.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submitted that the Petitioners having already sought amendment of the written statement in the trail Court are not entitled to the amendment of the written statement, especially at the appellate stage and that the intention of the Petitioners is to prolong the litigation. He further submits that the amendment is (sic) and the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

In Manohar Lal v. N.B.M. Supply 1969 SC 1268, the Supreme Court has in the matter of amendment observed as under:

Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence of even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensed for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.

In Harlal v. Manbhar 1987 P.L.R. 162 : 1987 HRR 203 this Court has held that it is well settled that the approch towards permission to amend the written statement is more liberal than towards the amendment of the plaint. In this case, the amendment of the written statement was allowed by the Appellate Court. It is equally well settled that when the amendment sought goes to the route of the matter, it should be allowed, especially, in the case of a written statement.

In the present case, the amendment sought is purely legal and no evidence is sought to be produced by the Petitioners. Thus the apprehension of the Respondents that the Petitioners are only interested to delay the matter is not well founded. It is true that amendment cannot be allowed as a matter of course on that the party is entitled to amendment as a matter of right, but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the amendment of the written statement sought to the extent indicated above is nothing but taking an additional legal plea which docs not require any evidence.

Under the circumstances, in order to do complete justice to the parties, I allow the amendment of the written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/- only to the limited extent as noted above. A formal amended written statement shall be riled by the Petitioners before the lower Appellate Court on the next date of hearing. Having allowed the amendment of written statement I frame the following Additional issue which arises as a result of the amendment of the written statement.

Whether the agreement to sell is void and not enforceable in view of the provisions of Section 5(e) and 42 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976?

The Petitioners are not entitled to lead any evidence on the-aforesaid issue and will address arguments only. I allow this petition, set aside the order under revision. There will be no order as to costs.

Since the subject matter of this revision is more than 10 years old and the apprehension of the Respondents is that the Petitioners are interested to delay the matter, I direct the lower Appellate Court to decide the appeal expeditiously and preferably on or before August 31, 1991. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the lower Appellate Court on 29-5-1991. The Petitioners, as already observed shall not be entitled to lead any evidence on the amendment allowed and the issue framed.