Dismissed

Roop Ram and Ors. v. Hry. Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2009CR/5989/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application to amend the plaint. The court held the amendment was not allowed as it was filed late after evidence was fixed and lacked merit under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order rejecting amendment in the plaint upheld.

Roop Ram and Ors. Vs Hry. Urban Development… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R. No. 5989 of 2008

¶2

¶3

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

C.R. No. 5989 of 2008

¶5

Date of decision: May 6,2009

Roop Ram and others

..Petitioners

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hissar

¶10

..Respondent

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg

¶12

Present: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral)

¶14

The plaintiff has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 10.10.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hissar whereby his application for amendment in the plaint has been rejected.

¶15

As per the averments made in the petition, the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant (HUDA) for declaration to the effect that Memo. No.10101 dated 8.5.2002 issued by the respondent in respect of plot DSB 71 situated at DHS Road, Commercial Urban Estate II, Hissar whereby the allotment in favour of the plaintiffs was cancelled, is null and void. The plaintiffs also sought relief of injunction restraining the defendant from cancelling the allotment of aforesaid plot with a further direction to the defendant to receive the balance consideration from the plaintiffs as per allotment letter No. 4102 dated 26.2.2002 and to sanction the building plan thereof. In the aforesaid suit, it was pleaded that auction of the aforesaid plot was effected on 25.2.2002. The plaintiffs participated in the said auction and being the highest bidder, the plot in question was decided to be released to them for a consideration of Rs. 10,92,000/-. The

¶16

¶17

C.R. No. 5989 of 2008

¶18

plaintiffs and others deposited 25 % of the auction price with the defendant and an allotment letter dated 26.2.2002 regarding the aforesaid plot was issued to the plaintiffs and the remaining balance of 75 % of the sale price was to be payable in 8 half yearly installments. The defendants issued the impugned memo. dated 8.5.2002 mentioning there in that the aforesaid plot was allotted to Shri C.D. Gupta and inadvertently, the same was re-allotted to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were offered the allotment of plot No. DSB-72 but the said offer was declined by them vide letter dated 13.5.2002. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of the plot No.DSB 71.

¶19

The suit was contested by defendant/respondent admitting the issuance of allotment letter vide memo. No. 4102 dated 26.2.2002 in favour of the plaintiffs and deposit of 25 % of the total price of the plot. It was further submitted that on coming to know from the record that plot in question i.e., No. DSB 71 was already allotted in favour of one Shri C.D. Gupta, the allotment in favour of the plaintiffs was cancelled and allotment of adjoining plot No. DSB-72 was offered to the plaintiffs which was not accepted by them. The allotment of plot No. DSB-71 in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled vide memo.No.11128 dated 27.5.2002 and the amount of Rs. 2, 73,000/- was refunded and sent through Cheque No. 702272 dated 24.5.2002 to the plaintiffs.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioners that they filed an application for amendment in the plaint with the plea that possession of plot No. DSB 71 was delivered to Shri C.D. Gupta in the year 2007 and he has raised construction on the plot in question in the year 2008 and in such circumstances, the plaintiffs wanted to take alternative plea of mandatory injunction to the effect that they be allotted plot No. DSB 72 as per the offer of the defendant. The aforesaid application was contested by the defendant-respondent on the plea that the plaintiff had already declined the offer of the defendant to allot him plot No. DSB 72 and therefore, now the plaintiffs were estopped from seeking amendment in the plaint. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.10.2008 rejected the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the plaint.

¶21

C.R. No. 5989 of 2008

¶22

¶23

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the subsequent events has necessitated the amendment in the plaint and thus the trial Court has failed to consider the subsequent events of possession of the plot and construction by C.D. Gupta and therefore, the petitioners were entitled to amend the plaint.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

At this stage, it is relevant to mention that issues in the suit were framed long back and case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs and when the last and final opportunity for plaintiff’s evidence was given, the present application for amendment in the plaint was filed by the petitioners. Moreover, the plea raised by the petitioner seeking amendment is also without any merit. The factum of allotment of plot to Shri C.D. Gupta was to the knowledge of the petitioners even at the time of filing of the suit. It was also known to the petitioners at that time that allotment in his favour of the aforesaid plot was also cancelled. Even the alternative plot i.e., DSB-72 was also offered to the petitioners which they did not accept and still had choosen to file the present suit. Thereafter, the case remained pending for almost six years and thereafter, the present application for amendment was filed.

¶26

In Vidyabai and others Versus Padmalatha and another 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that amendment in pleadings cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced except in the cases where despite the exercise of due diligence, the applicant could not ask for amendment in the pleadings. In the present case, the petitioner has miserably failed to bring his case within the aforesaid exceptions as carved out under the provisions of order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

¶27

Thus I find no merit in the revision petition.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶30

May 6, 2009 nk

Roop Ram and Ors. v. Hry. Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Ram and Ors. v. Hry. Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birbal Ram Vs Kulwant Rai and Anr.

Pankaj Chauhan and Anr. Vs Shyam Lal

Jasvir Singh Vs M/S Sumitri Kumar and Brothers

Amarjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Tarlochan Singh and Ors.

Sohan Singh Vs Raju etc.

Gurcharan Singh Vs Harjinder Singh & Ors.