Petitioner challenged dismissal of application to amend plaint at appellate stage seeking additional ground regarding ancestral property and agricultural custom. Court dismissed petition finding amendment sought frivolously to delay proceedings as plea not raised initially.
Revisional petition dismissed; application for amendment of plaint rejected.
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.
CR No. 432 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 432 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.5.2009
Mem Pal
.. Petitioner
v.
Anurudh Sharma and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 10.12.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage has been dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale deed dated 20.12.2001, registered by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 inter alia on the ground that the property being ancestral could not have been disposed of by respondent No. 2 without there being any legal necessity. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 23.7.2007. Though the appeal was filed on 6.8.2007, application for amendment of the plaint was filed on 8.10.2008, i.e., more than one year and two months thereafter seeking to amend the plaint to raise additional ground that the parties were governed by agricultural custom and Smt. Kamla, who was predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 2-vendor, could not inherit the property. The application having been rejected, the petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment, which is sought, is necessary for the purpose of adjudication of lis between the parties. The real controversy is as to whether the property in dispute was ancestral and whether respondent No. 2 could dispose of the same without there being any legal necessity and to prove that aspect, the amendment is necessary.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The learned court below had considered the prayer of the petitioner and dismissed the same with the observation that the amendment in the pleadings could be allowed only before the trial in the suit commenced. In
CR No. 432 of 2009 [2]
the present case, not even before the commencement of the trial, rather the trial court had even dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner and amendment was sought at the appellate stage. Even otherwise, the amendment, which is now sought by the petitioner, on the very face of it, seems to be frivolous. The effort seems to be only to delay the proceedings as neither this plea was raised at the initial stage nor at the time when the appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Rather, the application was filed more than one year and two months after the filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
21.5.2009 mk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment of plaint filed more than a year after filing of appeal at appellate stage should be allowed.
Whether the plea regarding agricultural custom and inheritance dispute was raised at the proper stage to justify amendment.
Whether the present revisional petition challenging dismissal of amendment application warrants interference.
Mem Pal
Anurudh Sharma
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
