In a civil revision, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging an order dismissing an application for amendment to lead additional evidence. Upholding the lower court, it held the amendment was filed to delay proceedings as the document existed earlier.
Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2693 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2009
Kulwant Kaur and another
...........Petitioner
Versus
Smt Tara Wati and others
..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Rawal,Advocate for the respondents.
Sabina, J. (oral)
Petitioners filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2004 in a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.8.1982. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Vide the impugned order dated 23.4.2008, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be
Civil Revision No. 2693 of 2008 (O&M)
-2-
dismissed.
There is no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment now sought in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be earlier sought as Piara Singh was lying sick. The application for amendment was filed by the wife of Piara Singh who is one of the appellants in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. The receipt cum agreement now sought to be produced on record by way of amendment is dated 3.12.2005. The application for permission to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 15.12.2007. Thus, at that time, the receipt cum agreement dated 3.12.2005 was already in existence. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly held while dismissing the application for permission to amend the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the same had been filed with a view to delay the proceedings. There was no plausible explanation as to why receipt cum agreement dated 3.12.2005 could not be incorporated earlier in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
( Sabina ) Judge
December 03, 2009
arya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision could be allowed to permit amendment of an application for additional evidence to delay proceedings.
Whether a receipt dated 2005 could have been incorporated earlier than the application for amendment filed in 2007.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kulwant Kaur
Tara Wati
Justice Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
