The petitioner challenged the lower court's order allowing respondents to amend their plaint to claim possession in a property suit. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the amendment aimed to avoid multiplicity of litigation and was discretionary.
Petition for civil revision dismissed; order allowing amendment of plaint remains.
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.
Civil Revision No. 1863 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1863 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.5.2012
Om Prakash
.. Petitioner
v.
Bal Kishan and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Sameer Rathore, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The defendant has challenged the order dated 31.1.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint was allowed.
It is a suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was prayed that release deed No. 3679 dated 16.2.2000 and the mutation entered on the basis thereof is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and they are owners in possession of the suit land left by Bhup Singh in equal shares. During the pendency of suit, application for amendment of the plaint was filed to seek relief of possession on the plea that the plaintiffs had been dispossessed after filing of the suit. The application having been allowed, the defendant is before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, from day one the respondents-plaintiffs were not in possession of the property in dispute. They have not specified the date on which they were dispossessed. The amendment in question was not necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute, which was otherwise filed quite belatedly.
Civil Revision No. 1863 of 2012 [2]
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The only amendment sought by the respondents-plaintiffs in the plaint is to seek relief of possession of the property of which they are seeking declaration to the extent that they are coowners thereof along with the defendant. The learned court below having exercised its discretion to allow the amendment with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation as even a fresh suit for the same relief could not be barred, this court would not like to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
9.5.2012 mk
2 issues framed by the court
是否具有正当理由驳回撤销允许修改诉状的命令
声称需要修正的修正案用于解决法律纠纷，这是否合适
Om Prakash
Bal Kishan
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
