Revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an application for amendment of written statement and the framing of issues. The court held the amendment was impermissible as it sought to withdraw an earlier admission and dismissed the petition.
Revision petition dismissed in limine with no interference by the High Court.
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.
C. R. No. 336 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 336 of 2012
Date of Decision : January 17, 2012
Shalu Sodhi and another
.... Petitioners
Vs.
Atma Ram and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Legal representatives of Mandip Singh Sodhi – plaintiff no.2 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 22.11.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, thereby dismissing two applications moved by the petitioners.
In suit filed by proforma respondent no.4 as plaintiff against respondents no.1 to 3 as defendants, Mandip Singh was impleaded as party and ultimately transposed as plaintiff no.2. Mandip Singh has since died and is now represented by the petitioners as his legal representatives.
C. R. No. 336 of 2012
2
Defendants, vide written statement-cum-counter claim (Annexure P-2), while filing written statement to the plaint, also raised counter claim.
Plaintiff no.2 Mandip Singh filed written statement Annexure P-3 to the counter-claim.
Petitioners moved application Annexure P-5 for amendment of written statement to the counter-claim (Annexure P-3) alleging that Atma Ram (defendant no.1) is neither Mohatmim nor Mahant of Dera Baba Magni Ram, Chhatta Magni Ram, Patiala and counter-claim filed by Atma Ram is not by the said Dera and Atma Ram – alleged Mohatmim/Mahant of the Dera has no locus standi to file the counter-claim in personal capacity, even if the property in question is proved to be of the Dera. By amendment, the petitioners sought to raise the aforesaid pleas and also wanted to delete the word `Mahant' at all places in the written statement (Annexure P-3). Petitioners also moved application (Annexure P-6) under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for framing additional issues as to whether the property in dispute is owned by aforesaid Dera and if the said issue is not proved, whether counter-claimants are entitled to possession of the suit property.
Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-7), dismissed the petitioners' application for amendment of the written statement to the counter-claim (Annexure P-3), but framed additional issue
C. R. No. 336 of 2012
3
as to whether the property in dispute is owned by the aforesaid Dera and the issues were also recast. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
case file.
In so far as petitioners' application (Annexure P-6) for framing of additional issues is concerned, the same has practically been allowed. Consequently, impugned order regarding disposal of the said application does not call for any interference.
In so far as petitioners' application (Annexure P-5) for amendment of the written statement (Annexure P-3) is concerned, counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners, by amendment, want to only elucidate the stand taken in the written statement (Annexure P-3). It was contended that even in the said written statement, it was not admitted that defendant no.1 is Mohatmim/Mahant of the aforesaid Dera.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find myself unable to accept the same.
Paragraph 1 of the counter-claim is reproduced hereunder :-
“ That the property detailed and described in the heading of the Counter Claim above is owned by Dera Baba Magni Ram, Chhatta Magni Ram, Patiala, of which defendant no.1
C. R. No. 336 of 2012
4
is the Mohitmim. ”
Part of paragraph 1 on merits of the written statement to the counter-claim (Annexure P-3), filed by the petitioners' predecessor Mandip Singh, is also reproduced hereunder :-
“ Para No.1 of the counter claim is wrong and denied. The property mentioned in the heading of counter claim is not owned by Dera Baba Magni Ram, Chhatta Magni Ram,
Patiala of which defendant no.1 is the Mohtmim. In fact, Mahant Atma Ram of Dera Baba Magni Ram – Chhatta Magni Ram have got no concern, title over the property mentioned in the counter claim, .... ”
From the aforesaid averments of petitioners' predecessor in written statement (Annexure P-3), it becomes amply clear that he categorically admitted Atma Ram – defendant no.1 to be Mohatmim/Mahant of the aforesaid Dera. Consequently, by way of amendment, the aforesaid admission could not be permitted to be withdrawn. Proposed amendment cannot be said to be clarification of the plea taken in the original written statement. On other other hand, by way of proposed amendment, the petitioners want to withdraw their admission that Atma Ram – defendant no.1 is Mohatmim/Mahant of the aforesaid Dera.
C. R. No. 336 of 2012
5
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
January 17, 2012 monika
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 227 with the trial court's refusal to permit amendment that sought to withdraw an admission made in the written statement.
Whether the proposed amendment was a permissible clarification or an attempt to take a new plea contrary to earlier admissions.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shalu Sodhi
Atma Ram
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
