Partly allowed

Vinod Kant v. Sanjay Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Mar 2022CR/243/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the court addressed the rejection of non-formal amendments to a plaint regarding land mutation. The revision held that although the pleaded mistake regarding indeficiency was not elaborated, the specific deletion requested would support the defendants. Consequently, that portion was allowed. (Original text is an unnumbered short order but assigned paragraph references

What did the court decide?

Amendment to the specific plea supporting defendants allowed.

Vinod Kant Vs Sanjay Kumar — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 11^th DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN CIVIL REVISION NO. 243 OF 2015

¶5

Between:-

¶6

1. VINOD KANT S/O SH. KHUSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶7

2. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O SH. VINOD KANT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶8

3. DEEPAK KUMAR, S/O SH. VINOD KANT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶9

...PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS

¶10

(BY SH. KARAN SINGH KANWAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1. SANJAY KUMAR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS.

¶13

1(a) SHIVANI MITTAL W/O LATE SH. SANJAY KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.

¶14

1(b) SHAYAM S/O LATE SH. SANJAY KUMAR, RESIDENT OF

¶15

¶16

VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.

¶17

1(c) AKSHIT S/O LATE SH. SANJAY KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.

¶18

2. SATISH KUMAR, S/O SH. DURGA DUTT, R/O VILLAGE BATOL, POST OFFICE SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH

¶19

3. GIANDER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS.

¶20

3(a) MEENAKSHI W/O LATE SH. GIANDER SINGH S/O SH. BALWANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶21

3(b) NITIKA D/O GIANDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶22

3(c) AYUSH S/O GIANDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶23

4. GOPAL, S/O SH. BALWANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶24

5. SATINDER KUMAR, S/O SH. BALWANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF

¶25

¶26

VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶27

6. KAMALENDER SINGH S/O SH. BALWANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶28

7. ANURAG SINGH S/O SH. BALWANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶29

8. CHANDERLEKHA D/O SH. BALWANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶30

9. MEENAKSHI D/O SH. BALWANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶31

10. NIRMALA DEVI W/O SH. BALWANT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶32

11. HEERA SINGH S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶33

12. ANKIT S/O SH. AMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶34

¶35

13.	AMAN S/O SH. AMAR SINGH,
	RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR,
	P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL
	PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR
	H.P.
14.	REKHA D/O SH. AMAR SINGH,
	RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR,
	P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL
	PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR
	H.P.
15.	SUMAN D/O SH. AMAR SINGH,
	RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR,
	P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL
	PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.
16.	REENA D/O SH. AMAR SINGH,
	RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR,
	P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL
	PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR
	H.P.
17.	SANGEETA, D/O SH. AMAR
	SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
	TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL
	PACHHAD DISTRICT SIRMOUR
	, H.P.
18.	ASHA D/O SH. AMAR SINGH,
	RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR,
	P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL
	PACHHAD DISTRICT SIRMOUR
	, H.P.
19.	ARTI D/O SH. AMAR SINGH,
	RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR,
	P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL
	PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR
	H.P.
20.	KANTA DEVI W/O SH. AMAR
	SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL

¶36

¶37

PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P. 21. NARDEV SINGH S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶38

22. KUSUMLATA, D/O SH. SUNDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P. 23. INDRA DEVI (NAME DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.09.2016)

¶39

24. KEWAL RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS (a) RAJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE SH. KEWAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶40

(b) LEELA DEVI W/O LATE SH. KEWAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶41

(c) YASHODA DEVI D/O LATE SH. KEWAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶42

25. MADAN SINGH S/O SUNDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶43

¶44

26. VIRENDER SINGH S/O SH. SUNDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P. 27. ASHWANI KUMAR S/O KEWAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TIKKAR, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶45

28. NEELAM D/O SH. DURGA DUTT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶46

29. RAJINDER PRAKASH S/O SH. DURGA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶47

30. SATPAL, S/O SH. DURGA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶48

31. JAGDISH S/O SH. DURGA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶49

32. BHAGWATI DEVI W/O SH. DURGA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶50

33. KEWAL RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS.

¶51

¶52

(a) HARNARAYAN S/O LATE SH. KEWAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶53

(b) OM PRAKASH S/O LATE SH. KEWAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶54

34. ANIL KUMAR S/O SH. JAGDISH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶55

35. MOHAN PRAKASH S/O SH. PUNNU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶56

36. ANKUSH BHARDWAJ S/O SH. MOHAN PRAKASH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶57

37. SURTI W/O SH. DHANNI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BATOL, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P.

¶58

38. AMAR NATH, S/O SH. BAKSHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE BAKEORI, P.O. BHELAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶59

39. KAMAL KRISHAN S/O SH. RAVI DUTT, RESIDENT OF VILALGE KAMAHAN, P.O. GAGAL SHIKORE, TEHSIL PACHHAD,

¶60

¶61

DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶62

40. SITA DEVI W/O SH. RAMESH KUMR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JOHANA, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶63

41. DEV RAJ S/O SH. RIKHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GALANA, P.O. THAKURDWARA, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRCT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶64

42. DEV SWAROOP, S/O SH. RIKHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GALANA, P.O. THAKURDWARA, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRCT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶65

43. JITENDER DUTT S/O SH. ATMA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE P.O. MANGARH, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶66

44. PITAMBER DUTT, S/O SH. ATMA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE P.O. MANGARH, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶67

45. RAM SWAROOP, S/O SH. KHUSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAWAL, P.O. BHELAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH. 46. YASH PAL S/O SH. HUKMI RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGHAR, P.O. GAGAL SHIKORE, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶68

¶69

47. RATTAN SINGH S/O SH. MATA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATLI, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMAUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH. 48. SUMITRA DEVI W/O SH. ROSHAN LAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH. 49. CHAMPA DEVI D/O SH. MADAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILALGE CHOWKI CHADHECH, P.O. SARAHAN, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH. 50. MADHU BALA W/O SH. ASHOK KUMAR, RESDIENT OF VILLAGE DOON, P.O. JAMAN KI SER, TEHSIL PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶70

...DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶71

(SH. NAVEEN K. BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1(A) TO 1(C).

¶72

SH. RUPINDER THAKUR, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 22 AND 25 TO 27.

¶73

SH. V. D. DHIDTTA, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 38.

¶74

NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 28 TO 37, 39 TO 45 AND 47 TO 50.

¶75

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:-

¶76

¶77

O R D E R

¶78

Aggrieved by the order, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners for amendment of the plaint was only partly allowed, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

¶79

It would be noticed that during the pendency of the plaint, plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application for amendment seeking therein as many as ten amendments. As regards the formal amendments, which were related to typographical mistakes, the same were allowed, however, the remaining amendments which were not formal in nature, were rejected, constraining the petitioners to file the instant petition.

¶80

Having perused the record, it would be noticed

¶81

that only explanation offered by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint is contained in para-3, which reads as under:-

¶82

That during the pendency of the aforesaid Civil Revision before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, it came into the knowledge of the applicants that due to inadvertence certain mistakes have been left while drafting the plaint and on dated 07.06.2007 the defendant No. 1 has forcibly raised

¶83

¶84

construction on land measuring 8 Biswas out of the suit land.

¶85

It would be noticed that instead of elaborating as to how an inadvertence or mistakes crept up while initially filing the plaint, petitioners did not choose to elaborate on the same and only made a brief mention of the proposed amendments. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court committed no fault and was right in dismissing the application for amendment.

¶86

However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client had initially challenged the Tatima that was prepared of mutation No. 31, as per the pleadings as contained in para-4 of the unamended plaint, which reads as under:-

¶87

That during the course of entrance of mutation no. 31, dated 03.04.1963 the Tatima was prepared wrongly, illegally and contrary to the actual position on spot. The copy of Tatima of mutation is AnnexureB has been attached herewith. The same is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

¶88

In the written statement filed by defendants No.

¶89

1, 2 and 8, the contents of para-4 were disputed and it was stated that the Tatima had been rightly and legally prepared

¶90

¶91

as would be evident from the contents of this para, which reads as under:-

¶92

That the contents of para No. 4 of the plaint are false, wrong, incorrect and are denied. The Tatima was rightly and legally prepared. The plaintiff has acted upon the Tatima and has sold land to the different persons, who are also in the settled possession. The Annexure-B shows the area of the plaintiff. The Tatima was never disputed by the plaintiff at the time of earlier sales. The scale used at the time of preparation of Annexure-B was 40 karam for 1 inch and thus there was no fault or irregularity when the Annexure – B was prepared.

¶93

Now the petitioners, apart from other

¶94

amendments, are also supporting the fact that the Tatima that was prepared was correct as is evident from para-3 (iii) and as such admission is to the advantage of the defendants and support the stands of the defendants, which read as under:-

¶95

3(iii). That in para no. 4 of the plaint in line no. 2 after word “Tatima” all words and sentences, i.e. “was prepared wrong, illegally and contrary to the actual position on spot. The copy of Tatima of mutation is Annexure-B has been attached herewith. The same is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.”, are required to be deleted.

¶96

¶97

I am of the considered view that since the

¶98

proposed amendment is to the extent, as quoted above, supports the stands of the defendants, the same ought to have been allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed only to the extent mentioned above.

¶99

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.

¶100

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶101

11^th March, 2022 (sanjeev)

Vinod Kant v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kant v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Rajesh Kumar

Newindia Assurance Company Limited Vs Vivek Rahi

Shakuntla Devi Vs Rohit Jamwal

National Insurance Company Vs Halya Devi and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Hp

Bishan Singh Vs Govind Ram