JUDGMENT
Bakhshish Kaur, J.
1. C.R. 2740 of 2001. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.4.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby the defendant-respondent has been allowed to amend the written statement.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Ram Kaur had filed a suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of 1/3rd share of the land in dispute. The suit was finally decreed in her favour. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant preferred appeal which is still pending before the Additional District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendants moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which was allowed.
3. I have heard Shri Alok Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rakesh Rathwal, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the proposed amendment could not be allowed as the petitioner was never given and opportunity to file reply to the application. Secondly, the defendants are minors duly represented by the Guardian. The first appellate Court has not appreciated the facts regarding the relationship of minors with the deceased.
The proposed amendment reads as under:-
“In fact, the father of defendants filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat against the plaintiff and the defendant (plaintiff) after understanding the suit engaged a counsel and filed written statement in the Court and the Court on 6th February, 1998, directed the suit of the father of the defendants Jawahar Lal challenged the said decree vide Civil Suit No.66 of 1990 and the said Civil Suit, No.66, the present plaintiff was also made party as defendant No.3. Later on, the compromise was effected between the parties including the plaintiff and the said suit was dismissed being compromised vide order dated 18.04.1992 passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat. Thereafter, the parents of the minor defendants died. After the death of the parents of the defendants, the plaintiff had challenged the above said judgment and decree dated 06.02.1988 again vide Civil Suit No. 193/93 titled Ram Kaur v. Jagir etc. but the said suit of the plaintiff was also dismissed as withdrawn on 24.01.1992 without the permission of the Court. The present suit of the plaintiff is barred by principles of res judicata as well as under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. The suit is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the suit of the plaintiff is also barred by limitation.”
5. Whether the proposed amendment which has been allowed by the Appellate Court is preserve or inconsistent with the pleas taken up earlier in the written statement?
Whether by allowing the amendment, any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner?
6. In my opinion, no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that reply to every application should be filed. Once the parties have addressed their arguments on the points in question, then the filing or non-filing of reply to the application becomes immaterial.
7. As regards the contention that relationship of the deceased Savitri and Parmesh-wari has not been appreciated by the Appellate Court while allowing the amendment, this fact does not go to the root of the matter.
8. The power to allow the amendments is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice, as held in B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai, (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 547 (S.C.), referred in Raghu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayyapan and Ors., 2001(1) P.L.J. 215. In B.K.N. Pillai’s case (supra), it is observed:-
“The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers, should not adopt hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation.”
9. In Raghu Thilak D. John’s case (supra), the Supreme Court observed that “the dominant purpose for allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation.”
10. On the point of limitation, it has been further held in Raghu Thilak D. John’s case (supra), as under :-
“….. The plea that the relief sought for by way of amendment was barred by time
is arguable in the circumstances of the case, 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.”
11. As is evident from the proposed amendment, the defendant by explaining the circumstances, intended to take up the plea that the suit is barred by the principle of res ju-dicata and it is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties etc. While doing so, if a party has been allowed to amend the pleadings, particularly in the background of the plea specially taken up in the proposed amendment. I am of the view that the Courts has not acted illegally in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it. Thus, the impugned order does no call for interference.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this revision petition. The same is
hereby dismissed.