Allowed

Jagdish Chander v. Vijay Pal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2011CR/3670/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order that denied amendment of a written statement. It held that the new plea based on a prior agreement to sell, already led as evidence, was essential for a just adjudication and rejection would perpetuate injustice.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.5.2010 was set aside and the application for amendment of the written statement was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 as costs.

Jagdish Chander Vs Vijay Pal and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

n l

0 0 t5

Z 2 L Z CQ 7 Z 11

0 1
Civil Revision No670 of 2010 1m
1 24r

¶6

INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶7

Jagdish Chander
VijayPal and others

¶8

Civil Revision N3670 of 2010
1 t
Date May2011
eePetitioner
Versus

¶9

2espondents

¶10

CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶11

Present MrAhunger Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr IVKSajjanAdvocate
for the respondents
RAJIVE BHALLA J

¶12

¶13

The petitioner an order dated 122010 passedby^theCivil Judge^Junior Divisionl^Abohar dismissing an appiicationfor amendment of his writtenstatement

¶14

Vijay^Pal respondent^nl filed^a suit for possessionby way of specificperformanceof an agreement^to sell dated 17052004 and also challengeda sale deed dated 0462004 executed by respondentno2 in favour of the petitionerand proformarespondent^no The peoner and proforma

¶15

and fiied a respondentn3 appeared^{beforethetriai} court JOYTI RANI Rani Anita 2016.03.28 16:23 2013.01.21 15: 59True Scanned I attest to the accuracy and Copy of the of integrity of this document detailed writtenOriginal statement pieadingthat theywere not aware PHHC, Chandigarh

1 0 0 0 0 Z Q

C Z 0 V7 Z Q

0 Civil Revision No670 of 2010 1

¶20

2e 2e6

¶21

the allegedagreementto sell executed in favour of no1 During^hisevidence the petitionerproveda prior to sell dated 31 72003 executed by no2 in favour of the petitionersbrother GanpatRai However as the agreementto sell was not pleadedin the written statement the petitioner^and respondent^no filed an for amendment of the writtenstatement to pleadthis prior to sell The petitioneraverred that no2executed this agreementto sell in favour of the petitioners brotherGanpatRai with Iibertyto getthe sale deed executed^In favour of a person of his choice GanpatRain therefore gotthe sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner

¶22

It is arguedthat as the prioragreement^to sell is germane^tothe petitionersdefence to the issue in hand and as it has aireadybeen Ied into evidence as Exl the petitioner should be allowed to amend his writtenstatement

¶23

Vide order dated 125Ol

¶24

0 the Civil Judge Junior

¶25

DivisionlAbohar

¶26

dismissed the byholding^that as the agreementExOl was Ied into evidence on 2092009 the petitionerwas aware of the agreement^to sell^and therefore he could not be allowed to amend his written statement at this

¶27

stage

¶28

Counsel for the petitionersubmits that the agreement

¶29

to sellRani Anitahas alreadybeen Ied into evidence as ExDl This prior JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:23

¶30

2013.01.21 15: 59True Scanned I attest to the accuracy and

¶31

Copy of the integrity of this document agreementOriginalPHHC,^tosellISa germane^to and has^a significantbearing Chandigarh

1 C 0 C0 I C5

Z r

OO V Z

0 r Civil Revision No670 of 2010 1

¶38

11
C
3
t

¶39

on amendment of a written the petitionersdefence4n statement stands on a different footingfrom amendment of a plaint^The rejection^{oftheprayerforamendmenthascaused}

¶40

serious prejudiceto the petitionerand his defence

¶41

Counsel for the on the other hand submits that as the petitionerwas aware of the agreementto sellt is further arguedthat as the trial has commenced and evidence has been recorded the petitionercannot be allowed to amend his written statement It^IS also submitted that the amendment would in essence alter the nature of the petitionersdefence from one of a bonafide purchaseto one of a prior agreementto sell It is prayedthat as the impugnedorder IS neitherperverse nor arbitraryand does not disclose any error of the revision should be dismissed

¶42

have heard counsel for the partiesand perusedthe order

¶43

Amendment of pleadings^{hasreceivedconsiderable} judicial^attentionand it has been held that amendment of a written statement stands^on different footing from amendment of a plaint The generalparametersthat govern consideration of for amendments of pleadingshave^been succinctlyset^outina judgment^ofthe Honble SupremeCourt reportedas Revajeetu Builders 8

¶44

Developers V 8t Sons 8 Others A JOYTI RANI Rani Anita 2016.03.28 16:23 2013.01.21 15: 59True Scanned I attest to the accuracy and relevantCopy of theOriginalPHHC, extract from the judgmentreads^as followS integrity of this document Chandigarh

m 0 0 C40 0 Z L

Z CO 7 Z Qm

0 Civil Revision No670 of²⁰¹⁰

¶50

P
e

¶51

¶52

67 On criticallyanalyzingboth the Englishand Indian cases some basic principlesemerge which ought^{tobetaken into} consideration while allowing or rejecting^the for amendment

¶53

11 Whether the amendment sought^IS for proper and^eHective of^{the case2}

¶54

21 Whether the for amendment is bona fide or mala fide2

¶55

l31^{Theamendmentshouldnotcausesuch} prejudice^to the other side which cannot be adequately117 termsofmoney

¶56

41 Refusing^{amendmentwouldinfact} Iead to injusticeor Iead to multiple 51 Whether the proposedamendment or changes^{thenatureandcharacterof} the case2 and

¶57

61 As a generalrule the court should

¶58

decline amendmentsif^a fresh suit^on

¶59

the amended claims would be barred JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and by Iimitation on the date of integrity of this document

¶60

Rani Anita 2013.01.21 15: 59 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh

¶61

¶62

0 Civil Revision No670 of²⁰¹⁰ 1

¶63

1 Q 0 O 0 I 4t Z t L I t0 Z m A7 Z Il

¶64

¶65

Delay^andIackofdue diligenceare factors VVhere^however the amendmentof pleadingsis essential for a just of the pendingIis delay or Iack of due except^whereitis malafide or culpableshould be Thus if the amendmentsoughtis to a Just of the pendingIis rejectionof such an amendment

¶66

would Iead to injustice

¶67

The purchasedthe propertyin disputebyway of a sale deed dated175006 Respondentnol filed^a suit for specific of an to seil dated 172004 executed by no2 The Ied Ex Dl a pnor to sell dated 31 72003 executed by no2 in favour of the petitionersbrother GanpatRai intoevidence and thereafterfiled an for amendment of the written statement to a plea^with respect^tothe agreement^tosell The trial court dismissed the on the groundthat as the had prior of the agreementhis failure to

¶68

a pleain his written statement shows the lack of due diligence was also held that the prayer for amendment would negatethe objectionraised bythe petitionerthat the prior

¶69

agreement^{Ied intoevidence is} beyondpleadings

¶70

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23

¶71

Rani Anita 2013.01.21 15: 59True ScannedCopy of the The trial c0Ul1 in my considered opinion failed to Original PHHC, Chandigarh

¶72

I attest to the accuracy and to integrity of this document

iC 0 0 I 0

Z 2

e I t Z r CQ et mvo Z m

¶77

0e1^{Civil RevisionN3670} of²⁰¹⁰ 6m 1

¶78

consider whether the amendment is necessary for a just proper and effective of the case and neither did it consider whether rejectionof the would perpetuate any injusticeTheproposedamendmentis based upon a prior

¶79

to sell which has alreadybeen Ied into evidence Denial of the prayer for amendment in my considered opinion would be unjustas it would deprivethe petitionerof a significant defence and preventa proper and effective of the caseIn its entiretyThe fact that the was belated or was filed after the document Exl was Ied into evidence should invite costs Depriving^the petitioner^ofhis prayer^for an amendment would not advance the cause of justice^butwould perpetuateinjustice^Asstated by^counselfor the petitionerthe petitionerdoes not want to Iead any further evidence on the basis of amendment

¶80

Iⁿ view of what has been stated hereinabove the revision IS allowed the order dated 1052010 is set aside and the for amendment is allowed subjecthowever to paymentof Rs10000 as costs

revision

Pell

May 2011
nt

1RAJIVEBHALLAI JUDGE

Rani Anita
2013.01.21 15: 59
True Scanned
Copy of the
Original
PHHC,
Chandigarh

¶86

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jagdish Chander v. Vijay Pal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chander v. Vijay Pal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Vill. Jheeta Kalan and Ors.

Rati Devi and Ors. Vs Khazani

Uma Devi and Anr. Vs Manoj

Amit Kumar Vs State of Haryana etc.

Mahender Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Inder and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.