In Civil Revision No.983 of 2011, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the revision petition, refusing to interfere with the trial court's order declining an application to amend a written statement, holding it was filed to delay the suit.
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.
-1-
Civil Revision No.983 of 2011 (O&M).
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Date of Decision: February 21, 2011.
Civil Revision No.983 of 2011 (O&M).
Vinod Kumar ... Petitioner
VERSUS
Birbal alias Balbir and others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
The defendant No.3-petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court whereby his application made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement in the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration etc. was declined.
-2-
Civil Revision No.983 of 2011 (O&M).
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I do not see any reason warranting interference in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. The trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties raised in plaint, written statement (s), replication (2), had framed the issues and the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffsrespondents when the the application for amendment of the written statement was filed by defendant No.3-petitioner on 7.9.2002. It is pertinent to mention here that statement of defendant No.1 Ramji Lal, aged about 95 years, predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiffs and defendants, has also been recorded by the trial Court on an application made in this behalf. It appears that the application for amendment of the written statement has been made by the defendant-petitioner just to delay decision in the suit. The parties inter se are closely related and quite aware of the fact whether the suit property is Joint Hindu Family property or not. As such, the admissions with regard to the factual matrix once made in the written statement already filed cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. Moreover, the trial Court is expected to sift the evidence in its right perspective while deciding the suit finally.
Dismissed.
February 21, 2011. ak
( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's order declining the petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinod Kumar
Birbal alias Balbir and others
MOHINDER PAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
