Allowed

Kishan Singh v. Shankar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2012CR/6877/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, the High Court set aside the trial court's dismissal of an application to amend a plaint. The amendment sought to correct a clerical error in the land number. Allowing the amendment to cure the error caused by the plaintiff's age and counsel's ailment, the Court held that the trial court erred in refusing the amendment and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of trial court set aside; application for amendment of plaint allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2500/- as costs.

Kishan Singh Vs Shankar Singh — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.6877 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.6877 of 2010 Date of decision : February 15, 2012

Kishan Singh

....Petitioner

versus

Shankar Singh

....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. GS Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent

¶13

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶14

Plaintiff Kishan Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant revision to assail order dated 20.7.2010, Annexure P/5, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar thereby dismissing application Annexure P/3 moved by plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint Annexure P/1.

¶15

Plaintiff in the suit alleged that about nine years before filing of the suit, defendant-respondent Shankar Singh gave 3 marlas land comprised of khasra no. 21//4/2 (0-2) and 4/4/2 (0-1) in exchange of 3 marlas land

¶16

Civil Revision No.6877 of 2010

¶17

-2-

¶18

given by the plaintiff to the defendant. By amendment of plaint, the plaintiff sought correction of khasra no. 21//4/2 to 21//4/1/2 alleging that there is clerical error in writing the said khasra number in para no. 1 of the plaint.

¶19

Defendant-respondent by filing reply Annexure P/4 opposed the aforesaid application. It was alleged that the application was belated and the application cannot be allowed in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) because the amendment application was moved after both parties have led their evidence i.e. after commencement of trial.

¶20

Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/5 dismissed plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶22

case file.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner himself was aged about 90 years and is now above 90 years and his counsel in the trial court Mr. Mohinder Paul Mahandru, Advocate through whom the suit was instituted was also suffering from some ailments and has also since died and therefore, error occurred in mentioning correct khasra number in the plaint and said error should be allowed to be corrected by amendment of plaint.

¶24

On the other hand, counsel for respondent contended that the

¶25

Civil Revision No.6877 of 2010

¶26

-3-

¶27

defendant in written statement Annexure P/2 had pleaded that he has no concern with khasra no. 21//4/2 (mentioned in the plaint) and he is owner in possession of khasra no. 21//4/1/2 (0-2) besides another khasra number but inspite thereof, the amendment application was not moved at that stage. It was contended that after commencement of trial proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on various judgments namely Vidyabai & Ors. Vs Padmalatha & Anr., 2009(1) Civil Court Cases 798; Rajkumar Gurawara vs. M/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2009(1) Civil Court Cases 001 (SC); Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors., 2007(1) Civil Court Cases 500 (SC); Bahadur Singh & Anr. vs. Avtar Singh, 2007(3) Civil Court Cases 417 (P&H) and Inder Pal Singh vs Bankey Bihari, 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 707 (P&H).

¶28

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is no quarrel with proposition of law that in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed after commencement of trial court unless the party seeking amendment could not inspite of due diligence raise the matter before commencement of trial. However, in the instant case only clerical error in mentioning khasra number of the land is sought to be corrected. The said error occurred because the plaintiff – petitioner is very old and his counsel through whom suit was instituted was also allegedly suffering from some ailment and has since died.

¶29

Civil Revision No.6877 of 2010

¶30

-4-

¶31

Keeping in view all the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, proposed amendment of plaint should be allowed notwithstanding that the amendment application was moved at belated stage i.e. long after commencement of trial. Defendant – respondent can be compensated by way of costs.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, I find that impugned order of the trial court suffers from jurisdictional error because the trial court refused to exercise the jurisdiction which vested in it to allow proposed amendment of plaint. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court is set aside and application Annexure P/3 moved by plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint is allowed and plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to make proposed amendment in the plaint subject to payment of Rs 2500/- as costs precedent.

¶33

February 15, 2012 'dalbir'

Kishan Singh v. Shankar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Singh v. Shankar Singh

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

Netra Pal Vs V.S.K.D. Smith and Ors.

M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Auto Oil

M/S Allwyn Enterprises (India) Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Others

Satpal & Anr. Vs Mahavir & Anr.

Chetan and Ors. Vs Narain Singh

Kishan Singh Vs Shankar Singh