Partly allowed

Dilbagh Singh v. Milkha Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2010CR/3933/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a revision petition partly to correct clerical errors in the headnote and prayer clause of a plaint regarding rectangle and khasra numbers. The petitioner was explicitly barred from leading fresh evidence to support the claim of possession in the amended paragraphs.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the headnote and relief clause of the plaint be read as Rectangle No. 10 and Khasra No. 25 instead of the mentioned errors. Clarified that petitioner cannot lead fresh evidence.

Dilbagh Singh Vs Milkha Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 3933 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 3933 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision: January 14 , 2010

¶6

Dilbagh Singh

¶7

...... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Milkha Singh and others

¶10

...... Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶12

Present: Mr.Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for th4 petitioner.

¶13

Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

¶15

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

Ajay Tewari, J.

¶19

This is a revision petition against the order declining application for amendment of the plaint and more specifically amendment in the head note and prayer clause of the plaint claiming that instead of Rectangle No. 10 by mistake Rectangle No. 19 was mentioned and instead of Khasara No. 25 in Rectangle No.11, Khasra Nos.24/1 and 24/2 were mentioned as well as amendment in para 4 of the plaint claiming that earlier

¶20

his father was in possession as a co-sharer and now the petitioner is in possession as a co-sharer.

¶21

Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondent has stated

¶22

Civil Revision No. 3933 of 2009 2

¶23

that the petitioner just wants to prolong the trial of the case . To this learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he just wants to make this amendment in the head note and in the prayer clause and shall not lead any further evidence in this regard. As regards the other amendment sought the same cannot be allowed as a technical error and the prayer regarding the said amendment is declined.

¶24

This revision is partly allowed and it is directed that in the head note as well as in the relief clause of the plaint it would be read as Rectangle No.10 in place of Rectangle No. 19 and Khara No. 25 in place of Khasra Nos. 24/1 and 24/2. It is further clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to lead any fresh evidence.

¶25

With these observations this petition is disposed of.

¶26

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶27

January 14 , 2010 sunita

Dilbagh Singh v. Milkha Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilbagh Singh v. Milkha Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dariya Vs Balwan and Ors.

Kirpal Singh and Anr. Vs Virender Singh

Lakshmi Chand and Others Vs Ganga Devi and Others

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ujagar Singh Vs Daljity Singh and Ors.

Bant Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh