The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that rejected an amendment of plaint. The applicant, a plaintiff in a property suit, sought to add a challenge to prior decrees, but the Court found this would entirely change the nature of the suit and that the omission was inexcusable.
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.
Civil Revision No. 1647 of 2010 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1647 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.3.2010
Rattan Lal and others
.. Petitioners
v.
Ashok Kumar and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Dr. P. K. Aryan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 1.2.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed.
In the suit filed by the petitioners on 21.4.2006, prayer was for declaration to the effect that they are owners of half share in the land measuring 02 Bigha-17 Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Garhi Mundo, Hadbast No. 192, as per jamabandi for the year 1945-46 and mutation sanctioned in the name of Manglu son of Shibu is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the petitioners and the mutations sanctioned on the basis of previous mutation in the name of the respondents-defendants is illegal, null and void. Prayer was also made for possession and permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating the suit land. Application for amendment was filed, during the pendency of the suit seeking to challenge the judgments and decrees of the Civil Court dated 14.6.1973 and 16.6.1991. The application having been dismissed, the petitioners-plaintiffs are before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment sought to be made in the plaint is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and delay in filing of the application is not fatal for grant of such a relief once it is found that for just decision of the controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the amendment is required.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The learned court below while dismissing the application observed that the pleas which are sought to be raised in the amended
Civil Revision No. 1647 of 2010 [2]
plaint are totally in contradiction with what was stated in the plaint. The amendment, if allowed, would entirely change the nature of the suit. As to why challenge to the aforesaid decrees was not incorporated in the suit filed originally was not explained by the petitioners-plaintiffs, once from the facts on record, it was established that these were well within their knowledge.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
11.3.2010 mk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a civil revision petition challenging the order dismissing an application for amendment of plaint.
Whether a late application to amend the plaint to add a challenge to prior decrees requires a change to the nature of the suit and suffers from fatal delay.
Rattan Lal and others
Ashok Kumar and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
