Allowed

Didar Singh and Anr. v. Punna Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2010CR/1121/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging the High Court's rejection of an amendment to the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Held that a plea of bar under Section 47 CPC can be raised at any stage as no prejudice accrues.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; amendment of written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC accepted and permitted to be filed before the next hearing.

Didar Singh and Anr. Vs Punna Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.R.No.1121 of 2010 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision : 20.9.2010

¶5

Didar Singh and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Punna Singh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶11

Present : Mr.A.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

None for respondent No.1.

¶13

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶14

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2009 by which their prayer for amendment of the written statement has been declined. Respondent No.1 had filed some objection before the executing Court during the pendency of the instant suit which was declined by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Gurdaspur vide order dated 8.2.2005 against which a revision petition was preferred which was also dismissed on 27.5.2005. The petitioners thus wanted to incorporate a plea in the written statement to that effect that the instant suit was barred under Section 47 CPC. Their prayer having been declined by virtue of the impugned order, the instant revision petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order

¶15

C.R.No.1121 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶16

has been passed on reasons extraneous to the controversy which has also not been correctly addressed by the trial Court.

¶17

No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent

¶18

No.1.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The objection which the petitioners wanted to incorporate in the written statement has not been met with by giving any cogent reason while declining the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. This objection being legal could also be raised at any stage. The Court was not right in holding that merely because the parties had already led their evidence, the amendment cannot be allowed. Since the legal proposition is permissible to be raised at any stage, it would not have prejudiced the case of respondent No.1. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the prayer of the petitioners for amendment of written statement is accepted. The petitioners shall now be permitted to file the amended written statement on or before the next date of hearing before the trial Court and permitted to take the objection stated therein.

¶20

Petition allowed.

¶21

20.9.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶22

dss

Didar Singh and Anr. v. Punna Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Didar Singh and Anr. v. Punna Singh 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

Surinder Singh & Ors. Vs Pawandeep Singh & Ors.

Mohd. Nasim Vs Shaukat Ali Khan

Khattu Ram Vs Charan Dass and Anr.

Suresh Kumar Uppal Vs Jiwan Singh and Ors.

Om Parkash Pandey Vs Jiwan Singh and Ors.

Kartar Singh Vs Malkit Singh and Ors.