ORDER
P.K. Misra, J.
1. Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed O.S. No. 303/89 for declaration of right, title and interest over “B” Schedule land; for further declaration that defendants 7 to 15 have not acquired any right, title and interest and possession over the scheduled land by virtue of the sale deeds executed by defendants 1 to 6 in their favour and for recovery of possession. When the suit was ready and about to be taken up for adducing evidence, a petition for amendment of the written statement was filed. In the petition for amendment, defendants 7 to 9 sought to add two sub-paragraphs to paragraphs 14 and 19 of the written statement. The said petition for amendment having been rejected by the trial Court, the present revision has been filed by the defendants.
2. In order to appreciate the disputed questions, it is necessary to extract the proposed amendments sought to be incorporated :–
“(i) That in para-14 of the original written statement the following may be added :–
It is true that the defendant No. 3 filed Title Suit bearing No. 101/87 in this Honourable Court for the cancellation of the alleged deed of partition dated 21-11-86; but not maliciously or with false and frivolous allegations. The said suit was filed genuinely and rightly as ‘A’ schedule property which includes the ‘B’ Schedule properly of the plaint were/are the subject of the said partition deed.’
(ii) That in para 19 of the original written statement the following may be added :–
‘In the Hal Settlement, the properties purchased by these defendants under registered sale deeds as mentioned previously, have been made a separate plot bearing No. 962/2957 under Khata No. 651 and in the Hal Settlement map also, the said plot has been separately carved out, in respect of which these defendants have got the patta of the Hal Settlement. The plaintiff has nowhere made any objection during different stages of the Hal Settlement operation in respect of these defendants’ properties. These defendants have constructed their house/building according to the approved plan of the B.D.A., Bhubaneswar, over their purchased property and are remaining in their building. They have also taken electricity and water connection into their house. They have been also paying the ground rent of their property in Bhubaneswar Tahsil. Their house/building has been also assessed to Municipality Tax of Bhubaneswar Municipality and they have been paying the Municipality lax duly. The plaintiff has no title and possession over the purchased properties of these defendants. These defendants have valid and lawful title and possession over their purchased properties beyond any question or challenge.”
3. So far as the amendment to paragraph 19 is concerned, the said prayer was rejected mainly on the point that the petition had been filed at a belated stage. True it is, the petition for amendment was filed at a stage when the suit was otherwise ready for hearing and evidence was about to be adduced. However, law is well settled that mere delay in filing a petition for amendment is not a ground to reject the same unless any other prejudice is caused to the adversary party thereby. Where the effect of amendment at a belated stage
is to take away a vested right, ordinarily the Courts are reluctant to allow such amendment. Otherwise, mere delay in filing petition for amendment is not considered to be a ground to reject the prayer for amendment particularly when the inconvenience caused to a party on account of such amendment can be remedied by way of payment of cost. The reasons for rejecting the prayer for addition to paragraph 19 of the written statement appear to be totally unjustified. It is clear that the Civil Judge has refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by illegally refusing the prayer for amendment so far as paragraph 19 of the written statement is concerned.
4. So far as amendment to paragraph 14 of the written statement is concerned, the trial court has refused such amendment on two grounds, firstly on the ground of delay and secondly on the ground that such amendment would take away the effect of admission. In paragraph 42 of the plaint, it had been stated :–
“12. That the defendant No. 3 in her individual capacity maliciously filed a Title Suit bearing no. 101/87 in this Hon’ble Court with frivolous and false allegation that in the aforesaid registered Bantan-patra ‘A’ schedule property was fraudulently mentioned even though the same was not subject matter of the partition of the said deed and prayed for cancellation of the said deed in part which is being separately contested by the plaintiff by filing a written statement.”
In reply to the above, the defendants had stated :–
“14. That the averment made in para 12 of the plaint is admitted.”
A careful reading of the original written statement as well as the petition for amendment so far as it relates to paragraph 14 reveals that the defendants still admit about filing of the earlier title suit, but the only addition relates to denial of the alleged malice. In the proposed amendment, the defendants do not want to delete the averment made in the original written statement, but want to explain by saying that though the earlier suit had been filed, the same had not been filed maliciously or with false and frivolous allegations. I fail to understand as to how by adding the sub-paragraph, the effect of the admission is being taken away. The trial Court without carefully considering this aspect has jumped to the conclusion that the effect of admission was being taken away.
The learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-opposite party No. 1, however, stated that the averments sought to be added in paragraph 14 of the written statement are not at all necessary for the just decision of the suit and it being unnecessary need not be allowed. However, I do not find it necessary to go into this aspect, as I find that the prayer for amendment was rejected on the basis of misconception on the part of the trial Court. Since effect of admission is not being taken away, there is no harm in allowing such amendment.
5. The petition for amendment was definitely filed at a belated stage and the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has been harassed thereby. After the prayer for amendment was rejected by the trial Court though on the basis of untenable grounds, the plaintiff has to again appear in this Court and contest the Civil Revision. Having regard to all those aspects, I consider it a fit case where the prayer for amendment should he allowed subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as cost. Such cost may be paid to the plaintiff or his counsel in the trial Court on or before 30th, January, 1999. If the cost is not paid within the said period, the Civil Revision as well as the prayer for amendment shall be deemed to have been rejected. If the cost is paid, the amendment shall be allowed and the trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably by end of June, 1999.
6. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the Civil Revision is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.