In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to an amendment of a plaint's paternal name. The court held no grievance was caused as the amendment clarified identity and sent the matter for specific findings to the trial court.
Appeal dismissed; the appellate order allowing the amendment of the plaint is upheld.
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.
SAO No. 40 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SAO No. 40 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 13, 2009
Ranjit Singh ........ Appellant
Versus
Kabal Singh and others .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. P P S Duggal, Advocate for the appellant
-.-
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
C.M. No. 18783 CII of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
C.M. No. 18784 CII of 2009
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
The application is accordingly allowed.
Main case
Vide an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
SAO No. 40 of 2009 (O&M) 2
Procedure, the only amendment sought to be made, is that the name of father of the respondent has been wrongly mentioned in the plaint as Kabal Singh son of Banta Singh, whereas his father's name is Pala Singh. The aforesaid prayer was disposed off vide order dated 04.05.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur with following directions:-
“......present application for amendment stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- and following issue is being framed:
Whether the plaintiff who gave his name as Kabal Singh son of Banta Singh in the plaint is the same person with whom the agreement dated 12.09.1998 had been executed? OPP
Since the said issue requires evidence to be adduced by the parties, as such I remit the present case to the trial Court with a direction that parties shall be given two opportunities each to lead evidence on this issue and that too within period of 15 days from the date the file is received by the trial court and findings on this issue be made within two months. The trial court shall remit the findings on this issue to this on or before 20.07.2009.”
Learned counsel for the appellant states that through the aforesaid amendment, the plaint is being rectified, which should not be allowed after the trial was over and at the appellate stage.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and also taking into account the judgements as referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant in the grounds of appeal, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned
SAO No. 40 of 2009 (O&M)
order dated 04.05.2009, vide which the application for amendment was allowed, specially taking into account the fact that the same has been allowed with a direction to the trial court to submit its findings on the issue framed above within two months, after affording equal number of opportunities to the parties for adducing evidence on the issue. The direction shows that the amendment shall be effective only when the issue in question is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
In view of the above, I find no grievance has been caused to the appellant, and as such, the judgements referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the dispute with respect to the name of the father of plaintiff requires to be clarified to avoid any confusion and ambiguity.
The present appeal is dismissed.
It is, however, made clear that any observation made in this case shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.
(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge
August 13, 2009 mohan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should permit revision of a *plaint* amendment order passed after the trial had concluded.
Whether the absence of prejudice to the appellant precludes interference with the lower court's amendment order.
Ranjit Singh
Kabal Singh and others
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
