Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHRIMONI GURDWARA COMMITTEE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JASWANT SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/09/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
FAIZAN UDDIN (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This special leave petition has been filed against the
order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made on May 17,
1996 in civil Revision No. 1023/96. The respondent
instituted a suit for declaration of his title to the land
admeasuring 134 canals 14 marlas in Hb. No.349 in village
Japuwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and also for
possession of the property. It is his case that he is
adopted son of one Isher Singh and that while he was in
possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner had
disputed his title to and interest in the said land and
filed a suit. The petitioner had pleaded in the written
statement that Isher Singh had no title in the property and
they set up the title in Darbar Sahib and that he had gifted
the property in favour of Darbar Sahib. Subsequently, the
parties, on the basis of issues raised, adduced evidence. At
the end of the trial, the petitioner had filed an
application under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for amendment of the written statement pleading that
Isher Singh had gifted over the property to Darbar Sahib,
Amritsar Shromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee and it was
in possession as a legatee of the property. There was
neither an issue nor any evidence adduced in that behalf.
Therefore, the High Court hes set aside the order on two
grounds, namely, one, though inconsistent pleas are
permissible to be taken in the written statement, this case
is not one of inconsistence but mutually destructive of the
pleadings and two, for unexplained delay.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the
High Court conceded that there is to explanation for not
taking that plea in the written statement and for coming up
with an application for amendment at a belated stage.
However, he contended that they have remotely stated in the
written statement that Isher Singh had gifted the property
but by way of amendment what the petitioner would be making
specific amendment in the written statement. That contention
was not accepted by the High Court.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The same contention has been reiterated before us. We
find no force in the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the pleading does contain the gift clause in
the original written statement and that it is sought to be
elaborated by obtaining proper documents at this belated
stage. It is settled law that the defendant can raise
mutually inconsistent pleadings in the written statement it
is for the Court to consider whether the case can be
properly considered in deciding the issue. But in this case
the plea in the written statement is mutually destructive.
In the first written statement, they have denied the title
of Isher Singh himself. When such is the situation, how can
they set up a title in him and plead gift made by Isher
Singh in favour of the petitioner-Committee. Under these
circumstances, the High Court has rightly refused to grant
the plaint. Moreover, there is no explanation given as to
why they came forward with this plea at the belated stage
after the parties had adduced the evidence and the matter
was to the argued. Under these circumstances, we do not find
any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the
exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference.
The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.