SHROMANI GURDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEEversusJASWANT SINGH

A         SHROMANI GURDWARA PRABHANDAK COMMITTEE
                                             v.
                                  JASWANT SINGH

                                 SEPTEMBER 4, 1996

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]

          Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
           i
           Order 6, Rule 17-Amendment of written statement-Filed at thf! end
C   of triai,--First written statement denied title of plai11tiff-Seco11d written state-
    ment set up title in plaintiff and pleaded gift of the property by the plain-
    tiff-Mutually destructive-Rightly refused by the High Cozll1-No interference
    called for.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
D   No. 16795 of 1996. ·

         ".from the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.96 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 1023 of 1996.

          Uma Datta for the Petitioner.
E
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           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
F   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 filed a suit. The
G   petitioner had pleaded in the written statement that Isher Singh had no
    title to 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
H   that Isher Singh had gifted over the property to Darbar Sahib, Amritsar
                                          538                                              .
   SHROMANI GURDWARAPRABHANDAK COMMITIEEv. JASWANf SINGH                  539

  Shromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee and it was in possession as           A
  a legatee of the property. There was neither and issue nor any evidence
· adduced iii that behalf. Therefore, the High Court has 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.
                                                                                 B

       The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the High Court
 conceded that there is no 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      C
 written statement that Isher Singh had gifted the property but by way of
 amendment the petitioner would be making specific amendment in the
 written statement. That contention was not accepted by the High Court.


       The same contention has been reiterated before us. We find no force       D
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 but it is for the Court to consider
whether the case can be properly considered in deciding the issue. But in        E
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.     F
Moreover, there is no explanation given as to why they came forward with
his this plea at the belated stage after the parties had adduced the evidence
and the matter was to be 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.


G.N.                                                      Petition dismissed.