1. This civil revision is directed against an order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rampur dated the 6th of July, 2022, rejecting an application by the defendants to amend their written statement.

2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted O.S. No.203 of 2021 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rampur for specific performance of contract against the defendant-revisionists. He claimed specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 30.11.2018, said to be executed in favour of the plaintiffrespondent by defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4, to wit, Jagtar Singh and Smt. Sukhraj Kaur. Not to enter the thicket of facts that parties have pleaded in this case, but to take note of those essential, that form the essence of the controversy, leading to this revision, it would, for a first, need be said how the defendant-revisionists are related to each other. The defendantrevisionist No.3 Jagtar Singh, is the son of Smt. Sukhraj Kaur, defendant-revisionist No.4. Defendant-revisionist No.1, Smt. Kinder Jeet Kaur is Jagtar Singh's wife, whereas Master Gurudeep Singh Sandhu, defendant-revisionist No.2, is Jagtar and Kinder Jeet Kaur's son, a minor aged about 12 years. The plaintiff-respondent, Karam Jeet Singh, is a Non-Resident Indian, settled in Birmingham, United Kingdom. He has instituted the present suit for specific performance through his power of attorney holder, Karan Singh, a resident of Village Tali Farm, Post and Tehsil Bajpur in the district of Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand.

3. The substance of the plaintiff-respondent's case is that he entered into a contract to purchase the suit property with defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4, which is agricultural land, comprising different plot numbers, described in the plaint, admeasuring a total of 2.0305 hectares and situate at Village Shekhupura, Tehsil Swar, District Rampur. The defendantrevisionists Nos.3 and 4 were recorded bhumidhars with transferable rights in the suit property. The plaintiff-respondent, on one hand, and the defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4, on the other, according to the plaintiff-respondent, voluntarily entered into the suit agreement dated 30.11.2018, duly admitted to registration by the Sub-Registrar, Swar, Rampur, where defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 covenanted to convey the suit property to the plaintiff-respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs.78,52,000/-. The suit agreement, that was executed, was one without possession. Out of the agreed sale consideration, defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4, according to the plaintiff-respondent, received an earnest of Rs.70 lakhs through cheques and cash, leaving a residue of Rs.8,52,000/- to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was covenanted also by parties to the suit agreement that the sale deed would be executed by 01.06.2020. It is the plaintiff's case that well before the arrival of the agreed date i.e. 01.06.2020, defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 gifted away the suit property through registered gift deeds, both dated 29.02.2020 in favour of defendant-revisionist Nos.1 and 2. The suit was, therefore, brought for specific performance of the suit agreement, cancellation of the two registered gifted deeds dated 29.02.2020, executed by defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 in favour of defendant-revisionist Nos.1 and 2, besides a permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendantrevisionists from further transferring the suit property in favour of any third-party or delivering its possession to anyone else.

4. A written statement was filed in the suit on behalf of defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4, who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the suit. The defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4, in substance, plead in their written statement that they were defrauded by Balkar Singh, a son of defendant No.3's elder brother into executing the suit agreement in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, Karam Jeet Singh, also called Paul UK. It is pleaded in the written statement that Balkar Singh was entrusted by defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 to take care of their farming done on the suit property, for reason that Balkar Singh enjoyed defendant-revisionist No.3's trust. Balkar Singh, in connivance with his wife, Rajvinder Kaur and her brother Balveer Rai and another Gurpreet Singh, represented to the defendant-revisionists that all of them could migrate to UK and work there with the assistance of the plaintiff. It is said that at the same time for the purpose of facilitating the defendantrevisionists Nos.3 and 4's transactions of money relating to the farming, bank accounts were got opened with the Axis Bank, Branch Bajpur for both defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4. In the said accounts, the mobile number given was Balkar Singh's father’s, so that the defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 would not receive any alerts about the transactions done.

5. At the same time, Balkar Singh and his associates, inspiring the defendant-revisionists about their migration to the UK with the help of the plaintiff, told them that they had to have a sum of at least Rs. 2 crores in their account to get a UK citizenship or commercial VISA. There are some other allegations related to agreements got executed by Balkar Singh in favour of his wife, but that is not directly related to the issue involved here. It is said by defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 that Balkar Singh, on the pretext of getting a special power of attorney, executed in his favour by defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4, took them to the Sub-Registrar's office on 30.11.2018. He represented to them that the special power of attorney had to be executed by defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 in order to enable him to deal with matters relating to the defendantrevisionists' immigration to UK and also to manage their farm related transactions. The suit agreement was got executed by defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 by Balkar Singh in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, misrepresenting its character as a power of attorney, without any consideration settled or paid.

6. In this very detailed written statement filed on behalf of the defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4, where the defence appears to be indicative of a fraud and misrepresentation, practiced upon the said defendant-revisionists by Balkar Singh and his associates, including the plaintiff-respondent, amendments were sought to paragraph No.29 and by an addition to the written statement, numbered as paragraph No.55 In paragraph No.29 of the written statement in the fourth line for the word after the word the word was sought to be substituted.

7. In order to better appreciate the nature of the amendment sought to be effected in paragraph No.29 of the written statement, it would be apposite to quote paragraph No.29 of the written statement filed on behalf of defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 (defendant Nos.1 and 2 to the suit):

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

8. The amendment sought is to substitute the word shown in bold letter by the word The other amendment sought is the addition of a paragraph, numbered as 55 (अ). This reads as follows:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

9. The plaintiff resisted these amendments before the learned Trial Judge on ground that one amounted to withdrawal of an admission, and the other, to implead parties to the suit, who were not parties to the contract. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned rejected the amendment application. The Trial Court opined that after commencement of trial, it had to be established necessarily by the defendants why steps were not promptly taken to introduce the amendment. It was held that going by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, the defendants have not been able to show why steps were not taken promptly. The suit was indicated to be set down for trial, which had already commenced. The other reason for refusing addition of paragraph 55 () to the written statement assigned by the Trial Court is that it is not indicated in the written statement how the persons, whom the defendants want to implead as necessary and proper parties, have assisted or connived with the plaintiff. A reference is made by the Trial Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others, (2012) 8 SCC 384, for the principle that in a suit for specific performance, non-parties to the contract need not be impleaded.

10. The Trial Judge repelled the contention put forward on behalf of the defendant-revisionists that at the stage of permitting amendment, it was not to be seen if the persons, whose names were sought to be introduced in the pleading, are necessary or proper parties. Through the plea of non-joinder sought to be introduced, the Trial Court opined that because it was proposed to seek impleadment of parties, it was necessary to examine, at that stage itself, if the persons, whose names were sought to be introduced, were in fact necessary and proper parties. Relying on the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI and the absence of necessity to implead persons, not parties to the contract, both the proposed amendments were declined.

11. Heard Mr. Shreeprakash Singh, learned Counsel for the defendant-revisionists and Mr. Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the sole plaintiff-respondent.

12. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the defendantrevisionists that it is not an inflexible rule that no amendment can be made after commencement of trial, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence, it could not be raised before such commencement. It is argued that amendments to the written statement are to be granted by a more liberal standard as compared to an amendment to the plaint and the amendments which the defendant-revisionists seek are no more than amplification or the correct statement of facts, not inconsistent with the other pleas. It is argued that the Trial Court has adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the amendment application, which ought to be eschewed by a Court generally, while considering pleas seeking amendments to the written statement.

13. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffrespondent, supporting the impugned order, that it is not permissible to grant amendment after commencement of trial in view of the proviso appended to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC. The defendant-revisionists had filed a very detailed written statement and there was no purpose to be served by seeking the proposed amendments after commencement of trial. It was just a pretext to delay trial. In addition, it is argued that by seeking substitution of the word in place of in paragraph No.29 of the written statement, an admission in favour of the plaintiff is sought to be withdrawn, which is impermissible, going by the first principles governing the law of amendment.

14. So far as the addition of paragraph 55(अ) is concerned, it is submitted that it is well settled that persons, who are not parties to the suit agreement, need not be impleaded in a suit for specific performance. The plea sought to be introduced about non-joinder of the parties, is ultimately directed to secure their impleadment to the suit. Therefore, it is urged that the Trial Court was right in scrutinizing, if at all the plea of non-joinder of those parties, sought to be raised in the written statement, would be of any permissible avail to the defendant-revisionists, in order to be allowed by way of amendment.

15. We have carefully considered the submissions made by parties and perused the record.

16. So far as the amendments sought to paragraph No.29 of the written statement is concerned, the amendment is one that seeks to substitute the words "है" for "था" there. The effect of the proposed amendment is not at all to withdraw any admission made in favour of the plaintiff. This is so because the relevant pleading in the first instance is about defendant-revisionist No.3's terms with his cousin Balkar Singh about the affairs of his farming. Whereas in the unamended paragraph, the defendant-revisionists have has said that they get their farming done by Balkar Singh, what they now seek to say is that defendant-revisionist No.3 got all that farming done by Balkar Singh in the past. It seeks to disown any current association between Balkar Singh and defendant-revisionist No.3, in the affairs of his farming. The proposed amendment is generally in keeping with the fabric of the defendant-revisionists' wholesome defence. The defence is about Balkar Singh being involved in fraudulently getting defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 into executing the suit agreement in favour of the plaintiff in association with his wife, his wife's brother and other associates, misleading defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 about the character of the document, by betraying the trust reposed in him by them. This was done, according to the defendant-revisionists, by Balkar Singh and his associates, misrepresenting to defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 that the special power of attorney that they were asked to execute would permit Balkar Singh to settle their affairs about immigration to the UK and also to handle matters of their farming back home.

17. Now, in this context of things, if the defendant-revisionists had inadvertently said in paragraph No.29 that Balkar Singh was still helping them in their farming, which obviously he would not be doing now in the changed circumstances, the substitution of the word "है" for "था" in paragraph No.29, does not withdraw any kind of admission made. It is rather one sought to explain the correct facts, pleaded in the written statement and put them in order with the general scheme of defence. The amendment of this paragraph would also hardly cause any prejudice to the plaintiff because all facts, elsewhere pleaded in the written statement, blame Balkar Singh for his connivance with the plaintiff.

18. The principles governing amendments to the written statement have been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others v. Modern Tent House and another, (2017) 8 SCC 567. In Modern Tent House (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court:

 “7. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the respondents against the appellants out of which this appeal arises is still pending. It is also not in dispute that the evidence of the parties is not yet over. In other words, the trial in the suit is going on.

8. We have perused the amendment application filed by the appellants. We find that firstly, the proposed amendment is on facts and the appellants in substance seek to elaborate the facts originally pleaded in the written statement; secondly and in other words, it is in the nature of amplification of the defence already taken; thirdly, it does not introduce any new defence compared to what has originally been pleaded in the written statement; fourthly, if allowed, it would neither result in changing the defence already taken nor will result in withdrawing any kind of admission, if made in the written statement; fifthly, there is no prejudice to the plaintiffs, if such amendment is allowed because notwithstanding the defence or/and the proposed amendment, the initial burden to prove the case continues to remain on the plaintiffs; and lastly, since the trial is not yet completed, it is in the interest of justice that the proposed amendment of the defendants should have been allowed by the courts below rather than to allow the defendants to raise such plea at the appellate stage, if occasion so arises.”

19. The principles regarding amendment to the written statement have also been laid down by the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh and another, (2006) 6 SCC 498, where it has been observed:

“9. Keeping this principle in mind, let us now consider the provisions relating to amendment of pleadings. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. From a bare perusal of this provision, it is pellucid that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure consists of two parts. The first part is that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend his pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the parties. Therefore, in view of the provisions made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC it cannot be doubted that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. While dealing with the prayer for amendment, it would also be necessary to keep in mind that the court shall allow amendment of pleadings if it finds that delay in disposal of suit can be avoided and that the suit can be disposed of expeditiously. By the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 a proviso has been added to Order 6 Rule 17 which restricts the courts from permitting an amendment to be allowed in the pleadings of either of the parties, if at the time of filing an application for amendment, the trial has already commenced. However, the court may allow amendment if it is satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. So far as proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, we shall deal with it later.

11. A bare perusal of the order rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement indicates that while rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement, the High Court as well as the trial court based their decisions mainly on three grounds. The first ground was that since the appellants had made certain admissions in the written statement, its amendment cannot be allowed permitting the appellants to withdraw their admission made in the same. Secondly, the question of limitation cannot be allowed to be raised by way of an amendment of the written statement and lastly, inconsistent pleas in the written statement cannot also be allowed to be raised by seeking its amendment.

14. As noted hereinearlier, the case set up by the plaintiff-Respondent 1 was that his parents had no money to purchase the suit property and it was the plaintiff-Respondent 1 who paid the consideration money. In the written statement, this fact was denied and further it was asserted in the written statement that the suit property was in fact purchased by their parents and they had sufficient income of their own. In the application for amendment of written statement it was stated that the plaintiff-Respondent 1 did not have any income to pay the consideration money of the suit property and in fact the parents of the plaintiff-Respondent 1 had sufficient income to pay the sale price. It was only pointed out in the application for amendment that after the death of their parents, the suit property was mutated in the joint names of the plaintiff-Respondent 1 and the defendants in equal shares. Therefore, the question whether certain admissions made in the written statement were sought to be withdrawn is concerned, we find, as noted hereinearlier, there was no admission in the written statement from which it could be said that by filing an application for amendment of the written statement, the appellants had sought to withdraw such admission. It is true that in the original written statement, a statement has been made that it is Defendant-Appellant 1 who is the owner and is in continuous possession of the suit property, but in our view, the powers of the court are wide enough to permit amendment of the written statement by incorporating an alternative plea of ownership in the application for amendment of the written statement. That apart, in our view, the facts stated in the application for amendment were in fact an elaboration of the defence case. Accordingly, we are of the view that the High Court as well as the trial court had erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement on the ground that in the event such amendment was allowed, it would take away some admissions made by the defendant-appellants in their written statement. That apart, in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [(2001) 8 SCC 97] this Court held that even if there were some admissions in the evidence as well as in the written statement, it was still open to the parties to explain the same by way of filing an application for amendment of the written statement. That apart, mere delay of three years in filing the application for amendment of the written statement could not be a ground for rejection of the same when no serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the plaintiffRespondent 1 so as to take away any accrued right.

15. Let us now take up the last ground on which the application for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the High Court as well as the trial court. The rejection was made on the ground that inconsistent plea cannot be allowed to be taken. We are unable to appreciate the ground of rejection made by the High Court as well as the trial court. After going through the pleadings and also the statements made in the application for amendment of the written statement, we fail to understand how inconsistent plea could be said to have been taken by the appellants in their application for amendment of the written statement, excepting the plea taken by the appellants in the application for amendment of written statement regarding the joint ownership of the suit property. Accordingly, on facts, we are not satisfied that the application for amendment of the written statement could be rejected also on this ground. That apart, it is now well settled that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. It is true that some general principles are certainly common to both, but the rules that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend his pleadings so as to alter materially or substitute his cause of action or the nature of his claim has necessarily no counterpart in the law relating to amendment of the written statement. Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action. Accordingly, in the case of amendment of written statement, the courts are inclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment of the written statement than of plaint and question of prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigour in the former than in the latter case.” 

20. There is a further restatement of the principle that amendments to the written statement are to be more liberally granted as compared to amendments to the plaint, even one explaining an admission or taking inconsistent pleas, to be found in Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, (2007) 5 SCC 602. In Usha Balashaheb Swami (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court:

“21. As we have already noted herein earlier that in allowing the amendment of the written statement a liberal approach is a general view when admittedly in the event of allowing the amendment the other party can be compensated in money. Technicality of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. In L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co. [AIR 1957 SC 357] this Court observed

“that the courts are more generous in allowing amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event”.

In that case this Court also held

“that the defendant has right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment the other side should not be subjected to serious injustice”.

22. Keeping these principles in mind, namely, that in a case of amendment of a written statement the courts would be more liberal in allowing than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter and addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can also be allowed, we may now proceed to consider whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement.” 

21. The issue, if the substitution of the word for would amount to withdrawal of an admission, which we have answered earlier in this judgment and held that it does not. The view that this Court takes that the proposed amendment has to be understood consistent with the general fabric of the defence, finds support in the holding of this Court in Bhagwan Swaroop Tripathi and others v. Gaushala Committee, Shikohabad and another, 2011 (88) ALR 188, where it is observed:

“13. In my opinion, the document has to be read in whole and in case, the amended paragraph 1 of the written statement and paragraph 20 are read together it will be found that they are inconsistent and paragraph 20 clearly shows that the intention of the petitioner was never to admit the contention of the respondent that society was registered at the time of filing the present suit and the petitioner has never tried to wriggle out from own admission since in paragraph 20 of the written statement it was categorically stated that registration of the petitioner has already expired and the suit is not maintainable, as such, there was no occasion for him to admit the contents of the paragraph 1 of the written statement with regard to registration......”

22. This Court is, therefore, of opinion that substituting the word for in paragraph No.29 does not amount to withdrawal of any kind of admission and is in no way an amendment inconsistent with the general scheme of the defendant-revisionists' defence. In any case, it does not prejudice the plaintiff-respondent in any manner, so as to entitle the plaintiff to have the proposed amendments refused.

23. Now, the other issue which the Trial Court has considered in declining the amendment is based on the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC. It is no doubt true as a rule that after commencement of trial, amendment should not generally be permitted. One exception, however, is mentioned by the proviso itself and that is that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. But, the rule embodied in the proviso is not an inflexible rule. In this connection, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu and others, (2012) 11 SCC 341 are seminal. It is observed in Abdul Rehman (supra):

“11. The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated by this Court in J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh [(2012) 2 SCC 300 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 801] and Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd. [(2012) 5 SCC 337 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 92] Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider whether the appellants have made out a case for amendment.”

(emphasis by Court)

 24. Reference may also be made to a decision of this Court in Rajendra Shanker Tripathi v. Ajay Kumar Gupta, 2011 (113) RD 651, where summarising the principles, it was observed:

“4. Object of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the Court should adjudicate on the merits of the case that come before them and should consequently allow all the amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Order VI, Rule 17 consists of two parts. The first part is discretionary and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading while the second part is imperative and enjoins the Court to allow all the amendments which are necessary for the purposes of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It may be added that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed.

5. A party cannot be refused a just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court generally gives leave to amend the pleadings to a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent. In the present case the amendments which have sought to be incorporated will not change the basic nature of the written statement (sic-plaint).

6. After engaging an advocate the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. It will not be proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his Counsel. It is well settled that litigant should not suffer for the lapses on the part of his Counsel. Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice.”

25. The rule is not, therefore, inflexible that in every case, where trial has commenced, the doors of amendment are irreversibly shut. In a case, where the facts warrant, amendment can be granted post commencement of trial as well. In case of amendment to the written statement, the standard has already been indicated to be liberal, and to the understanding of this Court, it would also have bearing on the issue of a belated amendment to the written statement, if brought in to clarify or elaborate facts, already pleaded in the written statement. In the present case, as already said, the amendment to paragraph No.29 does nothing more than to put the pleadings in paragraph No.29 in accord with the general matrix of pleadings on behalf of defendant-revisionists.

26. So far as the other amendment is concerned, the principle against non-joinder of persons, who are not parties to the suit agreement, was laid down by the Supreme Court in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited (supra) in a completely different context. The principle was laid down in the context of an application for impleadment by a party, who had entered into a transaction with the vendor to purchase the suit property, while a suit for specific performance was pending. The transaction was in violation of an order of injunction, restraining the vendor from alienating the suit property or creating third party rights. It was a denial of that kind of an application, that was upheld by the Supreme Court in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited.

27. Here, the amendments sought is about parties, who are said to have facilitated the plaintiff along with Balkar Singh in perpetrating a fraudulent transaction, as the defendantrevisionists say, that led defendant-revisionists Nos.3 and 4 into entering into the suit agreement with the plaintiff, thinking that it was something very different. If in the background of this defence, the plaintiff has sought to raise a plea about nonjoinder of these persons said to be involved in the conspiracy or the act of connivance, refusal of the amendment can hardly be said to be justified. It would still be a matter to be seen, if indeed, these persons ought to be impleaded as parties. As  already seen in the context of broad principles relating to the amendment of a written statement, many pleas, some inconsistent, can and ought to be permitted by way of amendment, that cannot be permitted in the case of a plaint. The Trial Judge, in refusing the amendment here, has certainly not gone by the settled standards of permitting amendment to a written statement.

28. The Trial Court, in declining the amendment, has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, which would result in failure of justice to the defendant-revisionists, if allowed to stand.

29. In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, the amendment application ought to have been and must, therefore, be allowed.

30. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rampur, is hereby set aside and reversed. The application for amendment is allowed. Let the written statement be amended in the terms prayed. The interim stay order is hereby vacated. The proceedings of the suit shall now be expedited and concluded early without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party.

31. There shall be no order as to costs.

32. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rampur through the learned District Judge, Rampur by the Registrar (Compliance)