Dismissed

(O&M)Roshan Lal v. Ramnik Bhalla and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Mar 2011CR/3174/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a civil revision against the trial court's order refusing an amendment of plaint. The petitioner sought to replead that disputed land was joint family property after admitting it was sole ownership in cross-examination. The court held the amendment was destructive to the original plea. Revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

revision dismissed with no orders as to costs.

(O&M)Roshan Lal Vs Ramnik Bhalla and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No.3174 of 2002 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 3174 of 2002 Date of Decision 8.3.2011

Roshan Lal

..Petitioner

Versus

Ramnik Bhalla and others

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶10

Present: Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. H.K.Aurora, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint so as to plead, that the property in suit was created by Santokh Chand, the original owner of the property, out of the funds generated from Joint Hindu Family Property. The trial Court dismissed the application by holding that the petitioner had already pleaded that Santokh Chand was the sole and exclusive owner of the property.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as a party may raise inconsistent and contradictory pleading, the finding recorded by the trial court to the contrary is incorrect in law. It is further submitted that as the amendment prayed for goes to the root of the dispute, the trial court should have allowed the application.

¶15

Counsel for the respondent No.1 states that though a plaintiff may raise an inconsistent plea, but if the plea so raised is destructive of the original plea and in essence is altogether a new plea, a plaintiff can not be allowed to amend his plaint. It is further submitted that in his cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted that the property in dispute is the self acquired property of Santokh Chand. The petitioner, therefore, can not be allowed to deviate from this admission.

¶16

Civil Revision No.3174 of 2002 2

¶17

I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and express my inability to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. The petitioner filed a suit pleading that Santokh Chand was sole and exclusive owner of the land in dispute. The petitioner stepped into witness box, as his own witness and during cross-examination admitted that the land in dispute was the sole and exclusive ownership of Santokh Chand. However, before arguments could be addressed, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint to raise a plea that the property in dispute is a joint family property as it was created out of funds generated from the income of joint hindu family property.

¶18

A plaintiff may, at his own peril, raise alternative and consistent pleas, but if the plea so raised alters the very nature of the suit, such a plea can not be allowed. The pleading that the property in dispute is joint hindu family property, if allowed, would enable the petitioner to alter the very foundation of the suit and to deviate from his admission, made during cross-examination, that the property in dispute is the sole and exclusive ownership of Santokh Chand. The trial Court, therefore, rightly rejected the prayer for amendment of the plaint.

¶19

In the absence of any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, the revision is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

¶20

8.3.2011 VK

¶21

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

(O&M)Roshan Lal v. Ramnik Bhalla and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M)Roshan Lal v. Ramnik Bhalla 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

Ankur Makkar Vs Rakesh Mohan Sharma and Ors.

Bhoop Singh & Anr. Vs S.C. Vashishta

Sheetal Vij Vs Sudesh Puri and Ors.

Muddu Ram etc. Vs Addl.Director C/H Hy.Etc.

Gurdev Singh Vs Financial Commissioner, Hry. & Ors.

Sumiti Sagar Vs Balbir Singh Jain & Ors.