Allowed

Attam Darshi Singh v. Simrat Singh & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2012CR/3853/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the orders of the learned court below which dismissed an application for amendment of plaint. The Court allowed the amendment to correct an unintentional error regarding a witness to a will, noting it did not alter the suit's nature.

What did the court decide?

The application for amendment of the plaint is allowed; the amended plaint is permitted subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost to the defendants.

Attam Darshi Singh Vs Simrat Singh & Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 3853 of 2011 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 3853 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.5.2012

¶4

Attam Darshi Singh

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

¶7

Simrat Singh and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

Challenge in the present petition filed by plaintiff No. 1 is to the order dated 9.12.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint filed by him, was dismissed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner along with respondent No. 3 filed a suit for declaration claiming themselves to be owners in possession of half share in the suit land on the basis of will dated 10.1.1994, executed by deceased father of the plaintiffs-Daya Singh. Mutation on the basis of inheritance recorded by the revenue authorities was also challenged. In the suit originally filed, a plea was taken that will dated 10.1.1994 was executed by deceased-Daya Singh in the presence of witnesses, namely, Ram Sarup, Naresh Kumar Rai and S. Paramjit Singh Advocates. In fact, Ram Sarup and Naresh Kumar Rai, Advocates were the witnesses on the will, whereas S. Paramjit Singh, Advocate was present before the Sub Registrar when the same was registered. As his name was also mentioned in the document, by mistake he was also mentioned to be a witness in the will. The error being clerical and unintentional deserved to be

¶14

Civil Revision No. 3853 of 2011 [2]

¶15

corrected by way of amendment. The same will not change the nature of the suit and prejudice the rights of the defendants. When the application was filed, only the issues had been framed.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the application having been filed when the trial had already commenced, the same was not maintainable. No details have been furnished in the application so filed by the petitioner, which were required. The amendment may not change the nature of the suit, but that will certainly demolish the case set up by the plaintiffs as documentary as well as oral evidence will not support the pleadings. The amendment having been sought at the belated stage has rightly been declined by the court below.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the only amendment sought in the plaint is to correct the fact that one of the persons, namely, S. Paramjit Singh, Advocate, who had been shown to be an eye witness to the will along with two other persons was, in fact, not the eye-witness but one of the persons who was present when the aforesaid will was registered and on account of that fact, his name was inadvertently mentioned in the list of witnesses to the will in the plaint originally filed. The error can be said to be unintentional, though one has to be more careful in drafting the pleadings. The amendment sought will not change the nature of the suit or otherwise prejudice the case of the defendants.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the impugned order passed by the learned court below deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. The application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner is allowed. The plaintiffs are permitted to file amended plaint, however, the same shall be subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as cost to be paid to the defendants-respondents No. 1 and 2 by way of demand draft.

¶19

The petition stands disposed of.

¶20

( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge

¶21

8.5.2012 mk

Attam Darshi Singh v. Simrat Singh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Attam Darshi Singh v. Simrat Singh & Anr.

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

M/S Bansal Wool Traders & Anr. Vs Bharat Kumar Soni & Ors.

Harbhajan Singh Vs Aruna Rani

Satpal Vs Indusind Bank Limited

Kuldeep Singh Vs Rajinder Singh

Gurdev Kaur and Ors. Vs U T Chandigarh

Ut, Chd. Vs Mahipal Singh and Ors.