http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRIMONI GURDWARA COMMITTEE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JASWANT SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition has been filed against the order of  the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made on May 17, 1996  in   civil  Revision   No.  1023/96.   The  respondent instituted a  suit for  declaration of his title to the land admeasuring 134  canals 14  marlas in  Hb. No.349 in village Japuwal,  Tehsil   and  District   Gurdaspur  and  also  for possession of  the property.  It is  his  case  that  he  is adopted son  of one  Isher Singh  and that  while he  was in possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner had disputed his  title to  and interest  in the  said land  and filed a  suit. The  petitioner had  pleaded in  the  written statement that  Isher Singh had no title in the property and they set up the title in Darbar Sahib and that he had gifted the property  in favour  of Darbar  Sahib. Subsequently, the parties, on the basis of issues raised, adduced evidence. At the  end   of  the   trial,  the  petitioner  had  filed  an application under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for  amendment of  the written  statement pleading that Isher Singh  had gifted  over the  property to Darbar Sahib, Amritsar Shromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee and it was in possession  as a  legatee  of  the  property.  There  was neither an  issue nor  any evidence  adduced in that behalf. Therefore, the  High Court  hes set  aside the  order on two grounds,  namely,   one,  though   inconsistent  pleas   are permissible to  be taken in the written statement, this case is not  one of inconsistence but mutually destructive of the pleadings and two, for unexplained delay.      The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the High Court  conceded that  there is  to explanation  for not taking that  plea in the written statement and for coming up with an  application  for  amendment  at  a  belated  stage. However, he  contended that they have remotely stated in the written statement  that Isher  Singh had gifted the property but by  way of amendment what the petitioner would be making specific amendment in the written statement. That contention was not accepted by the High Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    The same  contention has  been reiterated before us. We find no  force in  the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the pleading does contain the gift clause in the original  written statement  and that it is sought to be elaborated by  obtaining proper  documents at  this  belated stage. It  is settled  law  that  the  defendant  can  raise mutually inconsistent  pleadings in the written statement it is for  the Court  to  consider  whether  the  case  can  be properly considered  in deciding the issue. But in this case the plea  in the  written statement is mutually destructive. In the  first written  statement, they have denied the title of Isher  Singh himself. When such is the situation, how can they set  up a  title in  him and  plead gift  made by Isher Singh in  favour of  the petitioner-Committee.  Under  these circumstances, the  High Court  has rightly refused to grant the plaint.  Moreover, there  is no  explanation given as to why they  came forward  with this  plea at the belated stage after the  parties had  adduced the  evidence and the matter was to the argued. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error  of jurisdiction  or material  irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference.      The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.