ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 23-11-2000 in Civil Suit No. 10-A/98 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Rehli, allowing the plaintiffs application for amendment.
2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession of the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession thereon. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 pleaded that suit property is not that of the trust and that he is the owner of the suit property in his personal capacity. The suit was resisted by the defendants.
3. After about 27 years of institution of the suit, an application dated 19-2-2000 Document-2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was filed on behalf of plaintiff/respondent No. 1, praying that the plaint be permitted to be amended as proposed therein. It was averred by the proposed amendment that the suit property was not the personal property of plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The proposed amendment in substance was that the property was that of trust and that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was the ‘Mahant’ and that the suit may be treated as having been filed by the ‘Muhattamkar’ for and on behalf of trust -Shri Dev Radhakrishna Temple.
4. The amendment as above was considered and allowed by the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for defendants/petitioners submitted that by the proposed amendment the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has withdrawn their admission and averment that the suit property is his personal property and instead seeks to give a turn-about to the whole case by pleading that the property is that of trust and he is the ‘Mahant’ thereof and has brought the suit in that capacity.
6. Relying upon the case of Radhika Devi Vs. Bajrangi Singh [1997 (1) MPWN Note No. 130] decided by the Supreme Court it was submitted that, as such an amendment would cause prejudice and would adversely affect the valuable rights accrued to the petitioner, the same could not be allowed. It has further been submitted, placing reliance on Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others (AIR 1957 SC 363) that, since the above amendment would cause injustice to the cause of petitioners/defendants, the said amendment could not have been justifiably allowed.
7. However, as against this the learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent No. 1 relying upon Kamta Prasad and others Vs. Vidyawnti and others (1995 MPLJ 127) submitted that the amendment could be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, It has further been submitted that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was therefore entitled to prefer such an amendment and the Trial Court was justified in allowing the same.
8. It is noticed that the case of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 initially was
that the property in suit was his personal property. He has reiterated the above fact emphatically more than once, in the plaint. However by the proposed amendment he has given a complete go-bye to the admission and averments as above and instead has proposed to plead that the suit property is not his personal property, and it is in fact the property of the trust and that he being the ‘Mahant’ was entitled to prosecute the suit in that capacity.
9. Obviously the amendment as above would amount to a total shift of stand earlier taken by plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The amendment as above has been sought after about 27 years and after the substantial part of evidence has been recorded. Such an amendment, if permitted, would certainly cause prejudice to the defendants/petitioners. Therefore, amendment as above cannot be allowed.
10. In M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co. (AIR 1977 SC 680), the question for consideration was whether the defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea in place of the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement cannot be allowed. If such amendments are allowed in the written statement plaintiff would be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admissions from the defendants. Referring to above case the Apex Court in Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal (AIR 1998 SC 618) reiterated that when the amendment sought in the written statement is of such a nature as to displace the plaintiffs case, the same could not be allowed.
11. Accordingly, since the amendment and the pleas sought to be raised by amendment were totally inconsistent with the earlier pleas of defendant, and would amount to withdrawal of admission regarding the ownership of the suit property by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and since such amendment would cause prejudice to the petitioners, the amendment could not have been allowed.
12. In the circumstances, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application for amendment Document-2 stands rejected.
13. Civil Revision allowed.