Dismissed

Tara Chand and Others v. Rama Nand

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Jun 2023CR/28/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Civil Revision No.28 of 2023, this Court dismissed the petition challenging the Trial Court's order dismissing an application to amend the written statement. The petitioners sought to raise a plea of adverse possession after the trial and evidence concluded. The Court held there was no due diligence and allowed amendment would cause grave prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; impugned order upholding the dismissal of the amendment application.

Tara Chand and Others Vs Rama Nand — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Revision No.28 of 2023 Decided on: 13^th June, 2023 _________________________________________________________________ Tara Chand & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Rama Nand …Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶3

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶4

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶5

_______________________________ For the petitioners: Mr.	___ J.	_______________________________ P. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr.	B.	N. Sharma, Advocate.
_______________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge	___	________________________________

¶6

The petitioners were the defendants before the

¶7

learned Trial Court. At the stage of arguments in the civil suit filed by the respondent, they moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC in short), seeking amendment in the written statement to the effect that they be allowed to take the plea of adverse possession over the suit land. This application was

¶8

dismissed by learned Trial Court on 22.12.2022. Hence, this

¶9

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

¶11

petition.

¶12

2. The civil suit was instituted in the year 2014 by

¶13

the respondent, seeking possession of the suit land. The written statement was also filed by the defendants in the year 2014. The defence was that the defendants had become owner in possession of the suit land by way of an oral sale executed in their favour by one Smt. Gianoo. Issues were framed. Issue No.7 was “ Whether the defendant has become owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged?” The parties led their evidence on the issues. The evidence was concluded by both the parties. The matter was fixed for arguments. At that stage, the defendants moved the application for amendment of the written statement. The plea intended to be taken by way of amending the written statement was that the defendants have become owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. According to the defendants, plea of adverse possession was necessary to be taken for adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. This application moved by the defendants in August 2022 was opposed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his reply pleaded that the defendants had failed to lead any evidence in

¶14

¶15

support of their pleaded defence. There was no question of pleading further ingredients by seeking amendment of the written statement when the suit was at its fag end.

¶16

3. Learned Trial Court considered the application

¶17

and vide order dated 22.12.2022, dismissed the same.

¶18

4. Heard learned counsel on both the sides. For the following reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court:-

¶19

The Civil Suit was instituted in the year 2014. The suit was for possession of the suit land. The defendants (present petitioners) had categorically taken the defence of their being owners in possession of the suit land by way of an oral sale executed in their favour, in the year 2014. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, including issue No.7 “ Whether defendant has become owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged?”. The parties were aware of the case, the controversy, the issues and accordingly evidence was adduced by them. The matter was fixed for arguments. It is, at this stage, that the defendants moved an application, seeking amendment of the written statement. Once the trial had commenced, once the evidence had been

¶20

¶21

led and concluded by the parties, the amendment as sought for, could not be allowed provided due diligence was shown. In the instant case, the only reference to the due diligence as stated in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is “the counsel for the applicant noticed the omission only when he had been preparing arguments of the case that plea of adverse possession has not been specifically mentioned.” Obviously, there has not been any due diligence. The defendants had even otherwise taken a specific stand in the written statement of their being owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of an oral sale. Parties have already led evidence. In case amendment is allowed at this stage, it will cause great prejudice to the other side as it would then lead to starting the entire proceedings de novo from the stage of filing the written statement, framing of new issues and leading fresh evidence. This course cannot be permitted to be adopted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case wherein civil suit as well as written statement were filed in the year 2014; evidence stood recorded and the matter has been repeatedly fixed for arguments.

¶22

For the aforesaid reasons, there is no infirmity in

¶23

¶24

the order passed by learned Trial Court dismissing the application moved by the defendants, seeking amendment of the written statement at the stage of arguments.

¶25

Consequently, I do not find any merit in the

¶26

present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. The Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand

¶27

disposed of.

¶28

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶29

June 13, 2023 R.Atal

Tara Chand and Others v. Rama Nand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Chand and Others v. Rama Nand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Vs Sarita Kumari

M/S C and C Constructions Ltd. Vs the Hp Road and Other Infrastructures Development Corporation Ltd.

M/S C and C Constructions Ltd. Vs the Hp Road and Other Infrastructures Development Corporation Ltd.

Kameshwar Vs Kuldeep Kumar

Huma Nand Vs Dharam Singh

Mahesh Thakur Vs NHAI and Another