Allowed

Gurdial Kaur and Ors. v. Santokh Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2011CR/5922/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under Article 226, the High Court allowed the petitioners-defendants application for amendment of written statement, holding the trial courts finding of prejudice to be unsustainable when no evidence was to be led and the amendment added a single line.

What did the court decide?

Application for amendment of written statement allowed subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs to the other party.

Gurdial Kaur and Ors. Vs Santokh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No. 5922 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 5922 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 26^th ,2011

¶5

Gurdial Kaur and others

¶6

.... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Santokh Singh and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶13

This is a revision petition brought by the defendants – Gurdial Kaur and others under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 8.9.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam, vide which the application of the petitioners-defendants for amendment of the written statement has been declined.

¶14

The suit brought by Santokh Singh and others against the petitioners is for recovery of Rs.4,37,812/- inclusive of principal amount and interest. In the said suit, the defendants filed an application for amendment of the written statement. They have just desired to add a single line in para No. 3 of the written statement.

¶15

¶16

Civil Revision No. 5922 of 2011

¶17

The said line is as below :-

¶18

“There was an agreement between the parties on 28.1.2004.”

¶19

It was claimed in the application that no evidence is to be led consequent upon amendment of the written statement and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs, if the amendment was allowed.

¶20

The application was opposed by the plaintiff claiming the same to be not maintainable at the stage, it was moved. It is also averred that application has been filed just to delay the proceedings.

¶21

Considering the rival submissions, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam dismissed the application vide the impugned order for the reason that the amendment would prejudice the plaintiffs and that the defendants should have sought this amendment before beginning of the trial.

¶22

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendants have brought this revision petition.

¶23

I have heard Shri Tarunveer Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that when a single line insertion was sought by way of the application and it was clearly mentioned in the application that no evidence would be led consequent upon the amendment, there was no

¶25

¶26

Civil Revision No. 5922 of 2011

¶27

reason for the trial court to come to the conclusion that the amendment would prejudice the plaintiffs. According to him, learned trial court has passed unreasoned order dismissing the application.

¶28

When no evidence was to be led consequent upon the amendment, it could not be said that the amendment was designed to delay the proceedings of the case. A defendant can take additional defence, even inconsistent with the plea already taken in the written statement by way of amendment and such amendment cannot be declined for the reason that it would prejudice the other party. Learned trial court has not specified as to how the amendment would prejudice the other party. I also fail to find as to how this amendment could prejudice the other party.

¶29

For the aforesaid reasons, I find the impugned order to be unsustainable. The revision petition is, consequently, allowed and the application for amendment of the written statement is allowed subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs to the other party.

¶30

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶31

September 26^th , 2011 som

Gurdial Kaur and Ors. v. Santokh Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdial Kaur and Ors. v. Santokh 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

Karan Singh Vs Jodh Singh & Ors.

Gurjeet Singh Vs Kulwant Singh

Market Comittee, Shahabad Markanda Vs Kundan Lal & Others

Harbhajan Singh Vs Baldev Kaur etc.

Balwinder Singh Vs Puda and Ors.

Sukha Singh and Anr. Vs M/S S.S. Builders and Ors.