TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Khatauni No. 263 as fully described to the schedule of the plaint, (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). 3. The case set up by the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 was that the sale deeds executed on 24-6-1968 and 25-6-1968 in the names of his parents were benami transactions of his parents were benami transactions and the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 was the real owner of the same as his parents had no money to pay the consideration money of the suit property and that the sale deeds were executed pursuant to an oral agreement to sell which was entered into only by the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1. The Appellants entered appearance and filed their written statement, inter alia, denying that there was any agreement to sell the suit property or that the suit property was owned and possessed by the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that the Defendant No. 1/Appellant No. 1 is the actual owner and no possession of the suit property because he was residing in India continuously in village Bhin without any interruption from any one where as the interruption from any one whereas the Plaintiff is residing permanently in Canada. During the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....less no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit. 8. Keeping this principle in mind, let us now consider the provisions relating to amendment of pleadings. Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. A bare perusal of this provision, it is pellucid that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure consists of two parts. The first part is that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend his pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall he made for the purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the parties. Therefore, in view of the provisions made under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure it cannot be doubted that wide power and unfettered discr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to minimize the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plaint which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for. 12. In view of this decision, it can be said that the plea of limitation can be allowed to be raised as an additional defence by the Appellants. Accordingly, we do not find any reason as to why amendment of the written statement introducing an additional plea of limitation could not be allowed. The next question is that if such amendment is allowed, certain admissions made would be allowed to be taken away which are not permissible in law. We have already examined the statements made in the written statement as well as the amendment of the written statement. After going through the written statement and the application for amendment of the written statement in depth, we do not find any s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atement, it was still open to the parties to explain the same by way of filing an application for amendment of the written statement. That apart, mere delay of three years in filing the application for amendment of the written statement could not be ground for rejection of the same when no serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 so as to take away any accrued right. 14. Let us now take up the last ground on which the application for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the High Court as well as the Trial Court. The rejection was made on the ground that inconsistent plea cannot be allowed to be taken. We are unable to appreciate the ground of rejection made by the High Court as well as the Trial Court. After going through the pleadings and also the statements made in the application for amendment of the written statement, we fail to understand how inconsistent plea could be said to have been taken by the Appellants in their application for amendment of the written statement, excepting the plea taken by the Appellants in the application for amendment of written statement regarding the joint ownership of the suit property. Acco....