The Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 praying setting aside an order allowing amendment of a written statement to plead joint family property status, noting that contradictory pleas are legally permissible.
The petition praying for setting aside the order allowing amendment of written statement was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4008 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 18.01.2011 Kanwaljit Singh and others
...... Petitioners
VERSUS
Charanjit Singh and others
...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Ravinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.7.
A.N.JINDAL, J:
The petitioners have invoked the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while praying for setting aside the order dated 13.05.2010, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, allowing the application of respondent No.7-defendant No.4 (herein referred as 'defendant No.4') under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement, filed by defendant No.1 deceased Swaran Singh.
Vide impugned order dated 13.05.2010, the trial Court, without consideration, had permitted the defendant No.4 to amend the written statement by pleading that the suit land is joint Hindu family coparcenary property, managed by defendant No.1 as Karta and the alleged sale deeds are false and fabricated documents. Though earlier, the plea, set up by defendant No.1 Swaran Singh (since deceased) was that he had executed the sale deeds being the owner of the property. The trial Court, though has allowed defendant No.4 to amend the written statement yet the earlier written statement, as filed by Swaran Singh deceased would not leave its entity. However, in view of the settled law that even the contradictory pleas could be raised, I do not want to interfere in the impugned order.
Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. However, the Court could take notice of the admissions, made by the deceased Swaran Singh in the written statement at the time of deciding the case on merits.
(A.N.Jindal) Judge
18.01.2011 mamta-II
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the trial Court's order allowing amendment of a written statement to introduce a contradictory plea regarding joint Hindu family coparcenary property.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kanwaljit Singh and others
Charanjit Singh and others
A.N.JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
