JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, dated 23.7.1998 wherein the Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement.
2. Suit for possession was filed by the plaintiff for the land in dispute on the ground that the plaintiff respondent herein was the owner of the property in question and about 2 years ago the petitioner had taken forcible possession of the property in dispute. The plaintiff had obtained the demarcation of the land as per the order of the Tehsildar who was appointed as local commissioner and who gave his report dated 1.6.1997. In the report it was clearly stated that the defendant was in illegal possession of the suit land.
3. The defendant contested the suit and challenged the very right of the plaintiff to file the present suit. The defendant claimed to be in possession of the suit property for the last 30 years and he had raised some construction and had placed some machines on the suit property. His possession over the suit property was peaceful.
4. On the basis of the afore-stated pleadings the parties led their evidence and the plaintiff closed his evidence and the defendant also led his evidence. It is at the stage when the matter was practically concluded when the present application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the defendants.
5. It was stated in the application that the applicant wishes to add the plea that the defendant has become owner by adverse possession and he wanted to elucidate this plea by incorporation of certain facts. He wanted to specifically plead that the possession of the defendant remained continuous, uninterrupted and the plaintiff was aware of the said possession. This application of the defendant was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.1998 giving rise to the present revision.
6. The learned trial Court noticed that the case was fixed at the argument stage and the application is primarily intended to delay the proceedings before this Court and is malafide. It also noticed that the amendment if allowed would completely change the case of the applicant-defendant and would seriously prejudice the suit of the plaintiff.
7. Reference to the original written statement filed on behalf of the defendants at this stage would be necessary. In paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections it was stated that the plaintiff had no locus-standi to file the present suit as the defendant is in possession of the suit land for about 30 years. In the original written statement the defendant had not claimed himself to be owner by title of the said property and in fact the written statement was totally silent on that score. The case of the defendant as spelled out in paragraph No. 2 of the preliminary objections and paras No. 2 and 4 of reply on merits, as submitted in the original written statement, clearly establishes the basic case of the defendant, which is in consonance with the plea of adverse possession now sought to be taken by the defendant. In other words, the defendant is only claiming a right or a relief on the basis of the same facts which have been already stated in complete elaboration in the original written statement. At best the applicant is only trying to elucidate the facts with the purpose of taking a definite plea. The plea can neither be stated to be anew plea nor destructive of the plea already taken by the defendant. The defendant is not trying to create a new case in as much as he has already stated that he is in possession for the last 30 years and the plaintiff never asked him to vacate the land in question.
8. I am unable to see any reason for declining such an application on merits. Yes, there is considerable delay in filing the present application. The application neither creates a new case nor take the plaintiff by surprise. In relation to delay the plaintiff can always be compensated by awarding of appropriate costs. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code itself postulate an amendment at any stage of the proceedings in a suit. The only contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the plea of adverse possession would be a futile plea. I would not consider it appropriate to comment on the merits of this plea at this stage because it has to be adjudicated upon-in accordance with law by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. I am of the considered view that the application is not malafide but is intended to clearly and completely state the plea available to the defendant in suit, specially when the basic facts for raising such a plea has already been stated in the written statement.
9. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated 23.7.1998 is set aside. Application of the defendant-applicant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code is allowed. The written statement, if not already on record, be filed on or before the next date of hearing, subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Costs being conditional.