JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Plaintiff-respondent Harpal Kaur widow of Bachan Singh son of Kaka Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is the joint owner and id possession to the extent of 9/14th share of half share end the defendant-petitioners are the joint owners of 4/5th share of half share in equal shares of the land mentioned in the heading of the plaint and for permanent injunctioa restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in her peaceful actual possession. Kaka Singh i. e. her father-in-law along with other defendant i.e. sons and daughters of Kaka Singh were arrayed as defendants. Kaka Singh defendant filed his written statement on 12-8- 1985 wherein he admitted the fact that Harpal Kaur plaintiff was widow of his son Bachan Singh. Similar written statement was filed by his sons defendants Nos. 2 to 4 oh 1 101986 in which they also admitted the relationship of plaintiff with their brother Bachan Singh.
2. Defendant No. 1 Kaka Singh died. An application was filed for bringing on record his legal representatives, some of whom were already on the record. Defendant No. 11 i.e the son of the daughter of Kaka Singh was also added as a new defendant. The trial Court directed the plaintiff-respondent to amend her plaint The amendment was allowed on payment of Rs. 30/-as costs which were paid. Thereafter case was adjourned to 15-9-1986 for filing of amended written statement on 3-9 1986. Several opportunities were given to the defendants to file their written statement and ultimately the same was allowed to be placed on record with costs. Written statement was filed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as well as defendant No. 11 on 12-10-1987. Costs were also deposited which were also accepted by the plaintiff-respondent, in the amended written statement defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and defendant No. 11 in contradistinction to their separate written statement and that of their predecessor in-interest Kaka Singh took up toe plea that there was no relationship of plaintiff Harpal Kaur with deceased Bachan Singh.
3. Plaintiff thereafter filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C in which she prayed that the amended written statement be not permitted to be placed on the record on the plea that no amended written statement could be filed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who had already filed their written statement earlier and the newly added defendant No. 11 as legal representatives of Kaka Singh also could not file a fresh written statement as their predecesser-in-interest had already filed the written statement. In the alternative it was pleaded that even if the amended written statement is allowed to be placed on the record, then defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and defendant No. 11 could not be permitted to take inconsistent pleas with the pleas already taken by them in their earlier written statement or that of the written statement filed by their predeessor in interest Kaka Singh.
4. Trial Court rejected the first plea regarding the placing of the amended written statement on the record but on the second plea held that defendants could take any additional pleas in the amended written statement but they were not at liberty to take inconsistent pleas with the pleas already taken in their earlier written statement or in the written statement filed by their predecessor-in-interest. This plea related to the relationship of plaintiff Harpal Kausr with deceased Bachan Singh. In the earlier written statement the relationship between Harpal Kaur and Bachan Singh was accepted whereas there was a denial of relationship of Harpal Kaur with Bachan Singh in the amended written statement.
5. Defendants being aggrieved against this order have filed the present revision petition and pleaded that they were within their rights to file amended written statement to an amended plaint and. once they wore permitted to file the amended written statement they could take up any fresh pleas including the additional as well as the inconsistent pleas to the pleas already taken by them in their original written statement and that the trial Court has erred in striking off the so called inconsistent plea regarding the relationship of plaintiff with deceased Bachan Singh in their amended written statement in contra-distinction to their earlier plea regarding the relationship of plaintiff with deceased Bachan Singh in the original written statement being bad in law.
6. learned counsel for ‘he respondents has fairly conceded before me that the order of trial Court so far as it relates to the taking of additional pleas or inconsistent pleas in the amended written statement is concerned, the same cannot be supported and stated that the defendants would be all liberty to take additional as well as inconsistent pleas in the amended written statement with the pleas already taken by them So the earlier written statement; but has vehemently argued that no amended written statement should have been allowed to be placed on the record. His case is that the plaintiff-respondent had merely brought on record the legal representatives of the deceased Kaka Singh. Some of the legal rap sensitive were already on record and they had already filed their written statement. They could not be permitted to file an amended written statement and so far as the newly added defendant No. 11 is concerned, he has to step into the shoes of his predecessor-in-interest and continue with the suit at the stage at which his predecessor interest had left the proceedings at the time of his death.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant petitioners has pleaded that the plaintiffs had filed an application for amendment of the plaint which was allowed and then defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and the added defendants were called upon to file the written statement and they got a fresh right to file the written state eat to the amended plaint He further pleaded that even costs ware awarded against the defendants for not tiling the written statement. No objection was taken by the plaintiff regarding the filing of the amended written statement and even costs were accepted for Sling the amended written statement at a later stage. It was further argued that a right accrues to the defendant to file an amended written statement as and when an amended plaint is filed In the amended written statement the defendants are liberty to take any additional or inconsistent pleas to the pleas already taken by them in their earlier written statement.
8. I find force in the contention raised by the defendant-petitioners There is no rule of law statutory or otherwise which limits the fights of the defendants when called upon to file written statement to an amended plaint to any particular pleas. Policy underlying the law of pleading does not suggest that the amended written statement should be confined and restricted to the pleas already taken by the defendants in their earlier written statement. It has been held in a judgment reported as Jagdish Parshad (Jagdish Kumar) v. Dhensi Ram (decease ), (1977) 79 P. L. R. 670, that once an amended plaint is filed, a legal right accrues to the opposite party to file a fresh written statement where in new objections can be taken in the absence of any exceptional circumstances or any statutory bar or special order of the Court at the time of allowing the amendment. In this case also the defendants were within their rights to file an amended written statement to the amended plaint and there are no exceptional circumstances which restrict the defendants not to take any additional or inconsistent pleas to the pleas already taken by them in their original written statement. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the law relating to pleadings should not be construed and applied with undue rigidity and strictness if no prejudice or embarrassment towards fair trial of the suit is caused Counsel appearing for the parties have stated at the bar that evidence of the parties is yet to be led Under the circumstances no prejudice or embarrassment is caused to the fair trial of the suit and it would of course be open to the Court to consider whether or not the inconsistent plea which is being taken by the defendants in their amended written statement now is an after-thought and the same lacks merit but the right of the defendants to raise the new of inconsistent pleas can hardly be negatived under the circumstances. Moreover, in this case the amended written statement was permitted on payment of costs which have been accepted by the plaintiff respondent Once the costs are accepted, the respondent is estopped from challening the filing of the amended written statement.
9. This revision petition is. therefore, accepted Order of the trial Court is set aside so far as it relates to the striking off the inconsistent pleas taken by the defendants is concerned. The amended writ en statement as filed by the defendant-petitioners is ordered to be placed on the record. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 1-.10 -1990. Since the suit relates to the year 19S5, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. No orders as to costs.