Written statement by defendant to plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint
0 of 8 blanks filled
IN THE COURT OF Name of the court
Suit No. Suit number of Suit year
Name of the plaintiff: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Name of the defendant: DEFENDANT
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: -
1.That the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is highly belated.
2.That the present application has been filed by the plaintiff after the commencement of trial in the present suit. The suit is already at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff has failed to point out any reason as to why the said application could not have been filed earlier. In terms of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, no application for amendment shall be 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. It is submitted that the application is absolutely without merit and has not disclosed any reason as to why the plaintiff could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
3.That it is a settled principle of law that in a suit for partition of property, as in the present case, the jurisdictional value has to be determined on the basis of the value of the whole of the property, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8 of Chapter 3-C of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, Volume 1, framed by the High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887.
4.That the application of the plaintiff is wholly false and frivolous, and the reasons stated therein are untrue, baseless and an afterthought.
REPLY ON MERITS: -
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the application are a matter of record and hence need no reply.
2.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the application are a matter of record.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the application are a matter of record.
4.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that after the demise of their mother, the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 became owners of the property bearing Description of the suit property.
5.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that, in the circumstances stated, the plaintiff seeks to add necessary facts and to amend the prayer clause in the said suit. There is no basis whatsoever for filing the present application.
6.That the contents of paragraph 5 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that there is no intentional delay in moving the present application; on the contrary, the proposed amendment is not attributable to any inadvertence and the delay is deliberate.
7.That the contents of paragraph 7 of the application are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the present amendment will not change the nature of the suit in any manner or that it is filed in pursuance of any direction issued by this Hon'ble Court. The proposed amendment is false and mala fide. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. The proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff in the prayer clause is a complete afterthought.
8.That the prayer clause of the application is denied, and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed therein.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a)dismiss the application of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, being misconceived, with heavy costs; and
(b)pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
DEFENDANT
THROUGH
Place: Place
Dated: Date
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT