High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Herdev Singh And Others v. Dayal Singh - WRIT - C No. 51966 of 2004  RD-AH 4403 (19 October 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51966 of 2004
Hardev Singh and others Vs. Dayal Singh
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
A suit no. 286 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the petitioners for cancellation of the registered sale deed. On 18.7.2001 the defendants (petitioners) filed the written statement. The issues had been framed and thereafter the evidence of the plaintiff had been adduced. At that stage an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the defendant-petitioners on 23.7.2004. After inviting objection from the plaintiff, the trial court, vide its order dated 18.8.2004, rejected the amendment application. The revision filed by the defendant-petitioners was also dismissed by the District Judge, Rampur on 18.11.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed this writ petition.
I have heard Sri P.K.Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri T.A.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the amendments which are being sought are mainly for making the correction of the typographical errors in the written statement; that they do not change the defence of the defendants; and that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff-respondent even if the amendments are allowed. The trial court, vide its detailed order passed after considering the various decisions of the High Court as well as the Apex Court, rejected the amendment application, after holding that the defendants were only trying to prolong the litigation and delay its decision. The revisional court also did not find any error in the order of the trial court and thus dismissed the revision. In my considered opinion, the amendment which is being sought in the written statement is not merely correction of the typographical mistakes. By the same, fresh pleadings and defence is sought to be added under the garb of typographical mistake. Such amendment is being sought after three years of filing the written statement and that too after the issues had been framed and evidence of the plaintiff has already concluded.
The decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Dondapati Narayana Reddy Vs. Duggireddy Venkata Narayana Reddy 2002 A.C.J.238 as has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not help him. The Supreme Court has held that "the amendment should, generally, be allowed unless it is shown that permitting the amendment would be unjust and result in prejudice against the opposite side which cannot be compensated by costs or would deprive him of a right which has accrued to him with the lapse of time." The fact of this case are different from the case before the Apex Court. As already observed above, in the present case the petitioners had filed the amendment application after the plaintiff's witness had been examined and it was not simple application for making correction of the typographical mistake.
In my view, in the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the nature of the amendments, the trial court had rightly rejected the amendment application of the defendant-petitioners and the revisional court also right dismissed the revision. The aforesaid orders do not suffer from any illegality and do not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
As the suit is pending since long, it is desirable that the trial court may decide the suit expeditiously, without granting any undue adjournments to either of the parties.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.