In a revision petition under Order 64 CPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the trial Court's order allowing an amendment to the written statement. Relying on liberal principles of amendment, the Court held there was no merit in interfering.
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.
CR No. 440 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 440 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.2.2012
Bir Singh s/o Nanga
................Petitioner vs.
Bir Singh s/o Bhule and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
K.C. Puri, J.
CM No. 2490-91 CII of 2012
The application stands allowed. Copies of documents Annexures P-3 and P-4 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
CR No. 440 of 2012
Challenge in this revision petition by the plaintiff is the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which the application of respondent No.1 for amendment of written statement, has been allowed.
Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are owner in possession of land bearing Ahata No. 186/671 situated in Koli
CR No. 440 of 2012 -2-
Mohalla, village Fatehpur Billoch, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. However, now the ownership of this land vested in Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has given some land out of Ahata No. 186/671 to the Koli Mohalla residents and they have constructed their house therein and some land has been reserved for the purpose of Mohalla Koliyan Chaupal. However, the same is not being used now-a-days. However, land bearing Ahata No. 186/671 is being used exclusively by the residents of Koli Mohalla.
Defendants filed the written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs and pointed out that initially the suit property belongs to the father of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and they had purchased the said land from Gram Panchayat after depositing the composite fee of ` 5,874/- on 24.8.1985.
Respondent No.1 filed an application Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC that inadvertently, defendant No.1 has mentioned wrong Ahata number in the written statement and wanted to correct those Khasra numbers. It is further pleaded that this error occurred due to application filed by the SEPO in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ballabhgarh dated 4.8.1989. That application was resisted by the plaintiff- now petitioner. However, the trial Court after hearing both the sides accepted the application vide order dated 10.10.2011.
Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 10.10.2011, the plaintiff has preferred the present revision petition.
Learned trial Court, relying upon the authority reported as Usha Balasaheb Swami vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 830, has allowed the application. The law of
CR No. 440 of 2012 -3-
amendment in respect of written statement is more liberal than that of plaint. So, I see no reason for interfering in the order passed by the trial Court allowing the amendment of the written statement. C.M. No. 2491 CII of 2012 only points out the location of Khata number and does not improve the case of the petitioner.
Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
2.2.2012 chugh
( K.C. Puri ) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court acted within its discretion in allowing the amendment of the written statement to correct Khasra numbers.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Usha Balasaheb Swami vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and othersRelied on¶21
Usha Balasaheb Swami vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 830
Bir Singh s/o Nanga
Bir Singh s/o Bhule and others
K.C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
