Allowed

Paramjit Kaur and Anr. v. Utpal Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2011CR/7237/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition to set aside the order of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The revision was allowed as the amendment was necessary to avoid future complications arising from subsequent events.

What did the court decide?

The order of the trial court dismissing the application for amendment of plaint is set aside; the application is allowed.

Paramjit Kaur and Anr. Vs Utpal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR No. 7237 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 7237 of 2010 Date of Decision:15.09.2011

¶5

Paramjit Kaur and another

¶6

........petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Utpal Singh and others

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Banwait, Advocate for Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶12

¶13

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J.(ORAL)

¶14

The present revision has been filed to assail the order dated May 27, 2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khanna, whereby application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint was dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that during the pendency of the suit a subsequent event had taken place. It is stated that the appeal filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the order of Assistant Collector, Ist grade, Khanna was allowed by the Collector, Ludhiana. Therefore, this fact was necessary to be brought to the notice of the Court. Learned counsel has stated that when the application for amendment of the plaint was filed at that time only one witness of plaintiff was examined and therefore on coming to know about the subsequent events immediately the application for the amendment was filed in order to

¶16

-2-

¶17

CR No. 7237 of 2010

¶18

avoid future complications and multiplicity of proceedings.

¶19

Mr. Jagat Pal Singh, Advocate appearing for Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the respondents is not in a position to deny the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that till today no proceedings have taken place except examination of one witness of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial court only on the ground that the petitioner has availed various opportunities and has not concluded his evidence therefore, the amendment proposed was not bonafide. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since immediately when the appeal was accepted by the revenue authorities, this fact was sought to be introduced in the plaint, but the same has not been allowed.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts, this Court is of view that petitioners indeed have made out a case for the amendment of the plaint. In the present case amending the palint is necessary to save the parties from future complications. Thus, present revision petition is accepted and order passed by the learned trial court is set aside. Application for amendment of plaint is allowed.

¶21

September 15, 2011 harjeet

¶22

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

Paramjit Kaur and Anr. v. Utpal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Kaur and Anr. v. Utpal Singh and Ors.

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

Bhagat Singh Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors.

Kamlesh Rani Vs Sukhdev Nagpal & Ors.

Sita Ram and Ors. Vs Om Parkash

Balwinder Kaur Vs Ranjit Kaur and Ors.

Joginder Kaur Vs Chaitanya Kochar

Mam Kaur and Anr. Vs M/S True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.