Allowed

Sarwan Singh v. Roshan Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2012CR/6068/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing an application to amend a plaint to seek declaration that a sale deed was void for fraud and lack of consideration. Since the amendment was filed before the trial commenced and did not alter the basic facts, it was allowed subject to costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application for amendment of plaint allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000 cost.

Sarwan Singh Vs Roshan Lal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No.6068 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CIVIL REVISION NO.6068 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FABRUARY 1, 2012

Sarwan Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

Roshan Lal

.... Respondent

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. H. S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent.

¶13

¶14

L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Plaintiff Sarwan Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 16.07.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-2) moved by plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint Annexure P-1.

¶16

The plaintiff in the original plaint has alleged that he sold the suit land to defendant for Rs.3,50,000/- vide sale deed dated 12.08.2002 and the defendant paid the sale consideration through cheque dated 12.08.2002 which was, however, dishonored on presentation in the Bank. The plaintiff made request to the defendant to pay the sale consideration but the defendant filed to do so. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining defendant from alienating the suit land.

¶17

CR No.6068 of 2011

¶18

-2-

¶19

By way of amendment, the plaintiff wants to seek declaration that sale deed dated 12.08.2002 is illegal and null and void being result of fraud and without consideration with consequential relief of possession and also injunction as sought in the original plaint. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order Annexure P-3 which is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

¶21

file.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that application for amendment of plaint was filed even before filing of written statement by defendant-respondent and therefore, the said amendment should have been allowed.

¶23

Learned counsel for respondent contended that suit to challenge the impugned sale deed has become barred by limitation and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint has been rightly declined. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. Versus Alliance Ministries & others, 1996(1) Civil Court Cases 80 (SC) and judgment of this Court in case of Hari Singh versus Dalip Singh, 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 65 (P&H). It was also contended that proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and no new fact come into existence after filing of the suit and the fact sought to be pleaded by amendment was already in the knowledge of the plaintiff.

¶24

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

¶25

Law of amendment of pleadings is liberal. In the instant case, application for amendment of plaint was moved even before filing of written

¶26

CR No.6068 of 2011

¶27

-3-

¶28

statement by defendant-respondent i.e. before commencement of trial. Consequently proposed amendment of plaint should have been allowed by the trial Court on payment of costs. As regards bar of limitation, defendant can raise the same in his written statement to the amended plaint and the same can be adjudicated upon by the trial Court. It may be mentioned that basic facts of the case of the plaintiff would remain the same even after amendment of plaint. It has been pleaded in the original plaint also that the sale was without consideration because the cheque regarding payment of sale consideration was dishonored. On the basis of the same fact, the plaintiff wants to seek declaration that the sale deed is null and void being without consideration. Consequently notwithstanding the additional relief to be claimed by the plaintiff by amendment of plaint, basic foundation of claim of the plaintiff is not being changed by amendment. Consequently the proposed amendment should have been allowed on payment of cost.

¶29

Impugned order of the trial Court suffers from jurisdictional error because the trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it. Accordingly, the impugned order warrants interference of this Court in exercise of revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-3 of the trial Court is set aside. Application Annexure P-2 for amendment of plaint is allowed and the plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to make proposed amendment in the plaint, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent.

¶30

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶31

01.02.2012 'raj'

Sarwan Singh v. Roshan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarwan Singh v. Roshan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbans Singh Batra Vs Gurpreet Singh and Anr.

Sonia Vs Vinod Kumar

Ram Chander Vs Ramanand and Anr.

Ashik Ali Vs State Bank of India

Prem Devi and Anr. Vs Rohtash and Anr.

Nachhattar Kaur Vs Baldev Singh & Ors.