In a civil revision, the High Court allowed the amendment of a plaint to add a prayer for possession despite respondent arguments that the nature of the suit would be changed, aiming to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
Impugned order set aside; application for amendment of plaint allowed; respondents to pay ₹ 5,000 as costs.
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. 6365 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6365 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.5.2012
Shahabuddin
.. Petitioner
v.
Vaheed Khan and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Ms. Manisha and Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocates for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The plaintiff is before this court challenging the order dated 27.9.2011, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed.
The proceedings arise out of a suit for declaration filed by the petitioner claiming that he is owner in possession of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the application was filed seeking relief of possession. The same having been declined, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though initially the suit was filed for declaration and injunction claiming that the petitioner is owner in possession of the property and the same be not disturbed. However, later on account of the report of the Local Commissioner, who demarcated the land and found that part of the suit property was in unauthorised possession of the respondents-defendants, the plaint was sought to be amended to add the prayer for possession. The same
Civil Revision No. 6365 of 2011 [2]
has been wrongly declined by the court below. Only the prayer clause is sought to be amended and the petitioner is not required to lead any evidence. Even otherwise, once the petitioner is declared to be owner, he can file a fresh suit for possession.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had not been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. If he is permitted to amend the plaint at this stage, the same will change the nature of the suit. The application was filed at a belated stage. The petitioner, if so advised, may file a fresh suit, if he is entitled to the same, but the amendment in the present case has rightly been declined by the court below.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
The only amendment sought by the petitioner-plaintiff is to add the relief for possession of the property in the prayer clause. In the suit initially filed, declaration had been sought that the petitioner is owner in possession of the suit property. The application was filed after a demarcation report was submitted by the Local Commissioner opining that part of the suit property was in possession of the defendants. In case, the petitioner is declared to be owner of the property, he can always seek possession thereof. The amendment, sought for, should have been allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation, especially when the petitioner is not seeking to lead any further evidence and disposal of the suit will not be delayed.
For the reasons mentioned, the impugned order passed by the learned court below deserves to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. The application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint is allowed subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as costs to be paid to the defendants by way of demand draft.
The petition stands disposed of.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
Civil Revision No. 6365 of 2011 [3]
11.5.2012 mk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment of plaint to add prayer for possession should be allowed at this stage.
Shahabuddin
Vaheed Khan
another
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
