The High Court dismissed a civil revision challenging the allowance of a plaint amendment at the rebuttal stage. The court held that the correction was inadvertent, did not alter the suit's nature, and aided avoiding multiplicity of litigation.
The petition for revision challenging the amendment of the plaint was dismissed.
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. 3312 of 2012
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3312 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 28.5.2012
Jaswinder Singh and others
..... Petitioners
vs
Amarjit Singh and others
..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition filed by the defendants is to the order dated 24.4.2012 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the respondent no. 1- plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was allowed.
The amendment application was filed by respondent no. 1- plaintiff in a suit filed by him for declaration to the effect that he is cosharer in the property in question being legal heir and consequential relief of joint possession has also been prayed. After the conclusion of evidence of both the parties, the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence, when the application for amendment of plaint was filed to add the prayer that he is owner in possession of the suit land. The same having been allowed by the learned court below, the order is impugned before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2007. It was at the fag end when the application in question was filed. After commencement of the trial, amendment could be permitted only in case despite due diligence the same could not be pleaded at the initial stage.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The only amendment sought by the respondent no. 1- plaintiff in the suit was that he omitted to mention the
Civil Revision No. 3312 of 2012
(2)
words, “plaintiff is owner in possession of”. The mistake is stated to be inadvertent. It was further claimed by him that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit. Sufficient evidence is already on record for decision of the case. The petitioners herein are claiming to be co-owners of the land in dispute. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, in my opinion, the learned court below has not committed any error in allowing the application filed by the plaintiff. More so, when it is recorded by the learned court below that no further evidence is required to be led by the parties.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
28.5.2012 vs.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court committed an error in allowing an amendment to the plaint at the stage of rebuttal evidence to add a prayer for ownership and possession.
Whether the amendment sought would change the nature of the suit.
Jaswinder Singh and others
Amarjit Singh and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
