Dismissed

Balwinder Singh and Anr. v. Jeet Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Oct 2009CR/6103/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Against a revision petition seeking amendment of a written statement to raise a plea of family settlement after 10 years, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding the trial court's order correct due to the delay and lack of subsequent event. The revision was allowed/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, affirming the order of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar.

Balwinder Singh and Anr. Vs Jeet Kaur and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

CR No.6103 of 2009

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CR No.6103 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.10.2009

¶6

¶7

Balwinder Singh & another . . . . Petitioners

¶8

VS.

¶9

Jeet Kaur and others . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶12

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Present: Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioners

¶17

¶18

SURYA KANT J.(ORAL)

¶19

(1). This revision petition is directed by the petitioner/defendants against the order dated 7^th September, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby, their application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement, has been dismissed.

¶20

¶21

CR No.6103 of 2009

¶22

(2). The record reveals that a Civil Suit was filed in May, 1999 and Issues were framed on 22^nd March, 2004. The petitioner-defendants concluded their evidence on 14^th May, 2008. At the leg end, when the suit was ripe for final arguments, they moved an application for amendment of their written statement with a view to raise preliminary objection that there is already a family settlement between the parties. In the original written statement, the petitioner-defendants are relying upon some Will alleged to have been executed by Thakur Singh, Predecessor-ininterest of the parties.

¶23

(3).

¶24

The learned trial Court has dismissed the application after observing that the alleged family settlement is not a subsequent event and if at all any such arrangement had taken place, it was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner-defendants. No such plea was taken for a long period of over 10 years.

¶25

(4). The reasons assigned by the learned trial Court are just, reasonable and plausible.

¶26

(5). No ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar is made out.

¶27

(6). Dismissed.

¶28

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶29

23.10.2009 vishal shonkar

¶30

CR No.6103 of 2009

¶31

Balwinder Singh and Anr. v. Jeet Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwinder Singh and Anr. v. Jeet Kaur 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

Sushma Vs Thakur Dass

Jaswant Rai Jain Vs Subash Chander etc.

Anil Vohra Vs Manjit Singh and Anr.

Devki Rani & Ors. Vs Nirmal Singh

Ravinder Kumar Vs Saran Singh and Ors.

Narinder Kumar Vs Saran Singh and Ors.