IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO.4966   OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10975/2007)

   Sarmukh Singh     ...Appellant

Versus

   Baldev Singh           ...Respondent                With

           C.A. No.4967/2008(@ SLP(C) No.11156/2007)             

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

These  appeals  are  directed  against  the   judgment  and  order

dated 2.4.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder the Civil  Revisions  filed by the

appellant herein questioning the validity of the orders dated  9.5.2006 and 30.5.2006

passed by the Civil Judge(Junior Division) Ropar were dismissed.

The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellant herein

had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge,Sr.Divn, Ropar, inter alia, for grant of a

decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondent to demolish and

remove the structure raised over the land in suit which admeasured 18 ft. x 28 ft.

Appellant  claimed to  be  the  purchaser  of  the  said  suit  land  from one  Har  Kaur

daughter of Nand Singh.

A written statement was filed in the said suit by the respondent,

wherein, inter-alia, it was accepted that Har Kaur was a member of the family and

she could make  

-1-

transfer to the extent of her share. Genealogical table of the family had also been

disclosed in the written statement.  

Appellant, however, filed an application for amendment of the

plaint in terms whereof a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property was

also prayed for. The said application for amendment was allowed.

Respondent, thereafter, filed an application for amendment of

the written statement purported to be pursuant to the leave granted in his favour by

the learned trial Judge, while allowing the application for amendment of plaint filed

by  the  appellant.  In  the  said  application  for  amendment  of  written  statement,

however, the respondent did not confine the application to the extent of the averments

made in the amended plaint.  

The  respondent  not  only  made  new  averments  but  also

substituted the genealogy as disclosed in the first written statement in the amended

written statement. It  had, inter-alia,furthermore denied and disputed that the said

Har Kaur could have alienated any property in favour of the plaintiff.

The  civil  revision  application  filed  thereagainst,as  noticed

hereinbefore, was dismissed by the High Court.

-2-

Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant would submit that the

purported application for amendment of  the written statement as allowed by the

learned  trial  Judge  and  affirmed  by  the  High  Court,  on  the  premise  that  the

respondents  were  entitled  to  do so  as  the  plaintiff  himself  amended  the  plaint  is

wholly  untenable  in  law.  It  was,  furthermore,  submitted  that,  in  any  event,  the

defendants could not have substituted one genealogy by the other as a result whereof

the source of title of the plaintiff  could stand denied and disputed. Learned senior

counsel, however, furthermore contends that having regard to the proviso appended

to  Order  VI  Rule  17  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  the  said  application  for

amendment of the written statement could not have been allowed as hearing of the

suit had commenced.

We agree with the learned senior counsel that the application

for  amendment of  written  statement  could  not  be treated to be  one as  additional

written  statement  within  the  meaning of  Order  VIII  Rule  9  of  the  Code of  Civil

Procedure but in our opinion even if the said application is treated to be one filed in

terms of  Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,the same would not mean

that  by reason thereof any admission made therein is sought to be withdrawn. If a

mistake has been committed by the defendants in their original  written statement,

they were entitled to file an application for amendment thereof.  

It  is,  furthermore,well  known  that  an  application  for

amendment  of  the  written  statement  is  to  be  granted  more   liberally  than  an

application for amendment of the plaint.

-3-

We, at this stage, are not concerned as regards the correctness

or otherwise  of  one  genealogical  table of  the  family  or  the other.  The parties  are

required to

prove their respective cases before the learned trial Judge and in that view of the

matter, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for our interference with

the  impugned  judgment  at  this  stage,  particularly,  when  plaintiff-appellant  has

already filed replication to the said amended written statement in terms of the order

passed by the learned trial Judge himself.

So far as applicability of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule

17 is concerned, in our opinion, the said contention is misplaced as the  original suit

was filed in the year 2001, whereas the amendment has come into force in 2002. This

aspect  of  the  matter  is  covered  by  a  decision  of  this  Court  in  State   Bank  of

Hyderabad Vs. Town Municipal Council - (2007) 1 SCC 765.

With  the  aforementioned  observations,  the  appeals  are

dismissed. No costs.

......................J.       [S.B. SINHA]

......................J.       [CYRIAC JOSEPH]

New Delhi, August 4, 2008.