Allowed

Santa Singh v. Harbans Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2012CR/2187/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging the dismissal of an amendment application to a written statement. The High Court held the trial court erred in rejecting the explanatory amendment despite delay, setting aside the order and allowing the amendment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the application for amendment of the written statement is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs.

Santa Singh Vs Harbans Singh and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.2187 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.2187 of 2011 Date of decision 20.03.2012.

¶5

Santa Singh

¶6

...... Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

Harbans Singh and others

¶9

.. .... Respondents.

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present : Mr. R.S.Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.R.Dhawan, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2.

¶15

K.C.PURI. J.

¶16

Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 10.2.2011 passed by Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Zira vide which the application for amendment of written statement preferred by the defendants was dismissed.

¶17

Briefly stated the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that they have become owner in possession of the suit property as the right to redeem has extinguished due to lapse of time and they have become the owners of

¶18

Civil Revision No.2187 of 2011

¶19

¶20

the suit property.

¶21

The defendants resisted the claim.

¶22

In the meantime the defendants filed another suit for declaration

¶23

that the suit property is encumbrance giving the details of the land has since been redeemed. That suit was resisted by the present plaintiffs. Both the suits have been consolidated and are pending before the Court of law for adjudication.

¶24

In the present suit, defendants moved an application for amendment of the written statement giving the details that land has already been redeemed. That application was resisted by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court after hearing both the sides dismissed the application for amendment of the written statement vide order dated 10.2.2011. Learned trial Court observed that since the plaintiffs have led their evidence and defendants have also examined some witnesses and that petition for amendment of the written statement is at belated stage and on that account application was dismissed.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.

¶26

The learned trial Court has committed grave error which amounts to miscarriage of justice. The case of the defendants from the very beginning is that land has since been redeemed. The details regarding redemption of land have been given in another suit filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs. The present amendment is simply to explain the fact that land stands redeemed. The trial Court has itself consolidated both the

¶27

Civil Revision No.2187 of 2011

¶28

¶29

suits considering that same questions of law and facts are involved. Admittedly, in the suit filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs which has been consolidated in the present suit, the details of which are sought to be given in the written statement are there. I am of the considered view that amendment sought is merely an explanatory in nature. The defendants have not taken any inconsistent stand. From the very beginning, the stand of the defendants is that land has since been redeemed. So, on the grounds of mere delay, the trial Court should not have dismissed the application for amendment.

¶30

Courts are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. The rules and procedures are simply to circumvent of justice and not its master. Technicalities can never be a hurdle in dispensing with the real justice between the parties.

¶31

So, I have no hesitation in holding that impugned order does not stand the test of legal scrutiny and case is made out for amendment of the written statement in the present case.

¶32

Consequently, the impugned order stands set aside and the application for amendment of the written statement stands allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs.

¶33

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.

¶34

March 20 , 2012 sv

Santa Singh v. Harbans Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santa Singh v. Harbans 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

Nitin Kumar Jain and Anr. Vs Harsh Kumar Arora

Labh Kaur etc. Vs Dilbag Singh etc.

M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs Ram Diti and Ors.

Prem Nath Khanna and Anr. Vs Asha Khanna and Ors.

Seema Anand Vs Chanchal Arora

Kanchan Singh @ Kanchan Kumar Vs State of Haryana