Rajinder Pal Singh vs Neelam [email protected] Kanta
2023 Latest Caselaw 4751 P&H

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055941




                                                       2023:PHHC:055941
CR-2307-2019(O&M)                            -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                 CR-2307-2019(O&M)
                                 Date of decision:-20.4.2023


Rajinder Pal Singh


                                                                   ...Petitioner
                     Versus


Mrs. Neelam @ Kanta
                                                                ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN


Present:     Ms.Swati Verma, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.Akhil Kashyap, Advocate for
             Mr.Parveen K. Kataria, Advocate
             for the respondent.

                          ****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

1. Being impugned in this revision petition is the order dated

8.2.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana in civil suit for

specific performance titled 'Neelam @ Kanta Versus Rajinder Pal Singh'

vide which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the

defendant for amendment of written statement had been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the application in

question was filed by the defendant contending that his previous counsel

had wrongly admitted the facts of the suit filed by the plaintiff; as a matter

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055941

2023:PHHC:055941 CR-2307-2019(O&M) -2-

of fact no agreement dated 23.2.2016 was entered into between the

plaintiff and defendant for sale of the suit property, rather it was a loan

transaction between the plaintiff and defendant inasmuch as the defendant

had borrowed a sum of Rs.2 ½ lakhs from the plaintiff, which had been

returned by him to the plaintiff, however, at that time, the plaintiff had

obtained signatures of defendant on some blank stamp papers, which she

did not return to defendant even after receipt of the loan amount and those

documents might have been converted into agreement to sell.

Inter alia in the application it was alleged that the previous

counsel for the defendant in connivance with the plaintiff had admitted the

case, therefore, defendant is required to be given an opportunity to prove

his case on merits and necessary amendment in the whole written

statement is required to be made.

3. The application was resisted by the plaintiff contending that it

is an attempt to withdraw admission made by the defendant, which is not

legally permissible; issues on merits were framed in July, 2018;

examination in chief of witnesses of the plaintiff were recorded on

30.8.2018 and defendant had already availed of three opportunities for

cross examination of such witnesses without actually doing so and

thereafter the application in question has been filed. Therefore, it be

dismissed.

4. After hearing arguments, the trial Court vide the impugned

order had dismissed the application. For ready reference the operative part

of the order is being reproduced as under:

4. The submission of both the sides have been considered. The

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055941

2023:PHHC:055941 CR-2307-2019(O&M) -3-

defendant by way of present application seeks the permission

to amend his written statement on the ground that his

previous counsel in connivance with the plaintiff has

admitted the case of the plaintiff and the defendant be given

an opportunity to lead his case on merits. The defendant by

way of present application wants to amend his written

statement by denying the alleged agreement dated

23.02.2016 entered into between the plaintiff and the

defendant and wants to raise the plea that the defendant

borrowed the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and the

said amount already stood paid to the plaintiff and

accordingly, the said transaction was loan transaction. The

plaintiff, at the time of providing the loan to the defendant,

got signed certain blank stamp papers in lieu of the said loan

amount. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the

specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.02.2016

alleged to be executed between the plaintiff and the

defendant and for permanent injunction. The application

under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, moved by the plaintiff

was allowed vide order dated 06.07.2018 and thereafter the

case was adjourned for the evidence of the plaintiff. The case

was fixed for the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2,

when the present application was moved by the defendant.

The defendant filed the new power of attorney on 30.08.2018

and thereafter the case was adjourned to 20.09.2018 for the

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055941

2023:PHHC:055941 CR-2307-2019(O&M) -4-

evidence of the plaintiff and from 20.09.2018, the case was

adjourned to 01.11.2018 and from 01.11.2018, the case was

adjourned to 06.12.2018 for the evidence of the plaintiff and

on 06.12.2018, the defendant moved the present application

for the amendment of his written statement. The present

application for amendment has been moved after the gap of

more than three and half months from the date when the

defendant filed the new power of attorney of his counsel. The

defendant in his written statement has admitted the claim of

the plaintiff and now by way of the present application wants

to amend the written statement by deny his stand taken by

him in his written statement.

5. It has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and

Haryana High Court in case titled as Balvir Singh Vs. Jaspal

Singh & Anr. - 2014 (1) Civil Court Cases 784 (P&H), which

is reproduced as under:-

(I) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.17-Written statement-

Amendment Defendant made categorical admission

regarding execution of agreement and subsequent

cancellation thereof in written statement-Hold, it cannot be

allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment-petition

dismissed.

(II) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.17-Written

statement-AmendmentAdmission-Cannot be withdrawn when

it goes to the root of the case and the entire complexion of

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055941

2023:PHHC:055941 CR-2307-2019(O&M) -5-

the written statement is sought to be changed by withdrawing

such admission. (Para 5)

6. Accordingly, keeping in view the above referred judgement

of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the present

amendment cannot be allowed as the defendant by way of

present application wants to completely change his stand

taken by him in his written statement and the entire

complexion of the written statement is sought to be changed

by withdrawing such admission and accordingly, the present

application being devoid of merits and stands dismissed. The

judgement relied upon by the defendant is not applicable to

the facts and circumstances of the present case. The case is

adjourned to 11.03.2019 for the evidence of the plaintiff.

5. Such order left the defendant aggrieved and he has

approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition, notice

of which was issued to the respondent, who put in appearance through

counsel.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has advanced

arguments as per the assertions in the application, whereas learned

counsel for the respondent has made submissions in tune with the pleas

taken in the written reply.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has referred to

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055941

2023:PHHC:055941 CR-2307-2019(O&M) -6-

judgments Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Versus K.K. Modi & Ors.,

2006(2) RCR(Civil) 577, Harbans Singh and others Versus Biro @

Charanjit Kaur, 2014(4) RCR(Civil) 702, Sushil Kumar Jain Versus

Manoj Kumar & Anr., 2009(3)RCR(Civil)899 and Sagar Singh Slathia

Versus Surinder Pal Singh, 2009(3) RCR(Civil) 37 in support of her

contentions.

Whereas learned counsel for the respondent has referred to

judgments Balvir Singh Versus Jaspal Singh & Another, 2014(1) Civil

Court Cases 784 and Ram Niranjan Kajaria Versus Sheo Prakash

Kajaria and others passed by the Apex Court in support of his

contentions.

9. After considering the rival contentions and going through the

judgments referred to by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is

no merit in the revision petition. As has been rightly observed admission

made in the written statement cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by

putting blame on the earlier counsel representing the defendant. The

application is also quite belated having been filed after the trial in the case

had started and as per the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC amendment at

that stage cannot be allowed. The defendant cannot possibly withdraw the

admission made to the prejudice of the plaintiff. The application was

rightly rejected by the trial Court.

10. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is quite detailed

and well reasoned and it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity

and is not having any element of arbitrariness or perversity. The revisional

jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited and considering the facts and

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055941

2023:PHHC:055941 CR-2307-2019(O&M) -7-

circumstances of the case, there is no reason to interfere with the

impugned order by way of exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

11. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands

dismissed.

Since the main revision petition has been dismissed, the

miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

20.4.2023                                    (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij                                             JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking :             Yes/No

Whether reportable              :       Yes/No




                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:055941

                                    7 of 7