Partly allowed

(O&M)Amrik Singh and Anr. v. Amitabh Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2009CR/2136/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a revision petition and set aside a trial court order permitting amendment of a plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Court held that no notice was given to the petitioner before allowing the amendment and remanded the case for a fresh hearing after affording a statutory opportunity to contest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order allowed was set aside and case remanded to trial court to adjudicate afresh after giving opportunity to petitioners to file reply and contest the amendment application.

(O&M)Amrik Singh and Anr. Vs Amitabh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2136 of 2008

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2136 of 2008 Date of decision: 04.09.2009

¶5

Amrik Singh and another

¶6

....Petitionerss

¶7

Versus

¶8

Amitabh Singh and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶11

Present: - Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

¶15

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.2.2008, passed by the learned trial Court vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/respondents for amendment of the plaint, stands allowed.

¶16

The order passed by the learned trial Court reads as under: - “Heard. Counsel for the plaintiff has filed an application under order 6 R. 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC by mentioning therein that on account of advise of the earlier counsel for the plaintiffs only a simple suit for permanent injunction was filed, while suit for specific performance was to be filed. Therefore, on account of this fact, the plaintiffs wants to make certain amendments in the suit, which are very much necessary for proper adjudication of

¶17

Civil Revision No. 2136 of 2008

¶18

-2-

¶19

the present case and prayed that he be allowed to make consequential amendments in the plaint as detailed in application.

¶20

In view of the facts mentioned in the application, I am of the considered view that the present application deserves to be allowed as the case is at initial stage and the defendants have not put appearance so far. Even otherwise, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant in case the present application is allowed and same is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. Thus, in view of the circumstances, the present application is hereby allowed.

¶21

Amended plaint is already on the file. Notice of the suit as well as stay application be issued to the defendants for 18.3.2008 on filing of PF and copy.”

¶22

Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the

¶23

petitioners, contends that as per the pleaded case of the parties, the agreement to sell was claimed to have been executed on 9.3.2006. The date of execution of conveyance deed was fixed as 10.6.2007. It was after the expiry of the date fixed for execution of conveyance deed that the plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction on 21.9.2007, and a month thereafter i.e. on 29.10.2007 an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved, for amendment of the plaint, to claim the relief of specific performance.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, he could not contest the application moved for amendment of the suit, for the reason that no notice was given before allowing the amendment.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the fact that no notice was given to the petitioner before

¶26

Civil Revision No. 2136 of 2008

¶27

-3-

¶28

allowing the amendment.

¶29

There is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. This revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court to adjudicate afresh on an application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners herein to file reply and contest it in accordance with law.

¶30

Revision allowed.

¶31

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge

¶32

September 04, 2009 R.S.

(O&M)Amrik Singh and Anr. v. Amitabh Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Amrik Singh and Anr. v. Amitabh Singh and Ors.

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

Iqbal Singh Vs Mridu Nagpal and Anr.

(O&M)Jangir Singh Vs Kishan Singh and Ors.

Surjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Jaswant Singh Alias Jassa and Ors.

(O&M) Lachman Dass Vs Karam Singh and Ors.

Chameli Vs Sube Singh

Dera Baba Jassa Singh Prabandhak Committ Vs Lal Singh