Dismissed

Balbir Singh and Ors. v. Nitin Andors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2011CR/5902/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside a lower court order dismissing an amendment application. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the amendment introducing the term 'families' would create vagueness and allow vague claims.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) upholding dismissal of amendment application stands affirmed.

Balbir Singh and Ors. Vs Nitin Andors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5902 of 2011 --1--

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 5902 of 2011 Date of decision. 26.09.2011

¶4

Balbir Singh and others

.... Petitioners

Versus

Nitin and others

...... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶10

Present: Mr.Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

¶13

This revision petition has been brought by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the application for amendment of the plaint under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

¶14

The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of this revision petition are that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Krishan Chand, defendant nos. 1 to 6 are the legal heirs of Sham Singh and defendants no. 7 to 12 are the legal heirs of Nar Singh. Krishan Chand, Sham Singh and Nar Singh have died. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of oral partition between the families of the

¶15

Civil Revision No. 5902 of 2011 --2--

¶16

aforesaid three persons. It is claimed that due to oversight and clerical mistake, the word 'families' could not be mentioned in the relevant paragraphs of the plaint. It is asserted that though the family settlement had taken place between the families of the aforesaid persons, yet inadvertently in the plaint, the family settlement is claimed to have taken place between the aforesaid persons. Therefore, the amendment is sought to introduce the word 'families' in the plaint for the family settlement to have taken place between them in place of the three individuals.

¶17

The application was opposed by the defendants, who claimed the same to be not maintainable because the case was fixed for final arguments. The proposed amendment was claimed to be changing the entire nature of the case and prejudice the defence of the answering defendants. It is further averred that in February 2006, the defendants filed their written statement taking specific objection that no family settlement took place between Nar Singh, Sham Singh and Krishan Chand. The fact now sought to be introduced was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the application has been made at a very belated stage.

¶18

Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamunanagar at Jagadhri dismissed the application for the reason that the amendment would amount to re-opening of the case and would require a denovo trial, which could not be allowed.

¶19

Civil Revision No. 5902 of 2011 --3--

¶20

Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 05.08.2011, the plaintiffs have brought this revision petition.

¶21

I have heard Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the only amendment sought by the plaintiffs is to claim that in place of the three individuals, the family settlement had taken place between the families of these persons. According to him, neither the same would require a denovo trial nor that would cause any prejudice to the other side.

¶23

In my opinion, the plea could not be allowed for any reason. The amendment would have introduced vagueness to the plaint. Families is a very vague term when the plaintiffs are not specifying as to who constituted the families of those three persons. Such vague term cannot be allowed to be introduced just to give a long rope to the plaintiffs to call any persons related in any manner to these persons to support the plea of the oral family settlement.

¶24

For this reason, as also for the reasons given by learned trial court, I find no merit in the revision petition and consequently dismiss the same.

¶25

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶26

26.09.2011 dinesh

Balbir Singh and Ors. v. Nitin Andors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh and Ors. v. Nitin Andors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Kaur and Ors. Vs Guljar Singh and Ors.

Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs Rameshwar

Bahal Singh and Ors. Vs Shamsher Singh and Ors.

Manisha and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Mohinder Singh & Ors. Vs Blajinder Kaur & Anr.

Murti Devi and Ors. Vs Balbir and Anr.