High Court dismissed revision petition challenging order dismissing amendment of plaint claim. Held amendment misconceived as title issue pending elsewhere and suffered 13-year delay. Suit remanded for speedy disposal after 14 years.
Revision petition dismissed; trial court directed to dispose suit expeditiously.
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.
C. R. No. 7962 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 7962 of 2011 Date of Decision : February 08, 2012
Satnam Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
Rajbir Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. K. S. Rekhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Plaintiff no.1 Satnam Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing instant revision petition to challenge order dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-1) moved by plaintiffs (petitioner and proforma respondent no.8) for amendment of plaint.
The plaintiffs, by way of amendment, want to plead that their grandfather Sulakhan Singh was in possession of the suit land long with other land on the basis of sale deeds dated 14.09.1962 and 29.11.1962, and
C. R. No. 7962 of 2011
2
therefore, all legal heirs of Sulakhan Singh including the plaintiffs, have become owners of the suit land. It is alleged that Sulakhan Singh had filed a suit, which was decreed on 04.03.2004. First appeal in the said suit was also dismissed, but in second appeal, this Court remanded the case to first appellate court, where first appeal is still pending.
Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-3), dismissed the plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff no.1 has filed the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
case file.
Counsel for the petitioner stated that Sulakhan Singh had filed the aforesaid suit in the year 1995 prior to the instant suit instituted by the plaintiffs in the year 1998. Claim of Sulakhan Singh on the basis of sale deeds dated 14.09.1962 and 29.11.1962 is already pending adjudication in first appeal arising out of the suit filed by Sulakhan Singh. Counsel for the petitioner states that the said suit filed by Sulakhan Singh is now perhaps pending in the trial court after remand. Be that as it may, claim of Sulakhan Singh on the basis of aforesaid sale deeds has to be adjudicated in the said lis.
It may also be added that counsel for the petitioner stated that Sulakhan Singh has since died and his legal heirs including the plaintiffs have already been impleaded in that lis. Consequently, rights of plaintiffs
3
C. R. No. 7962 of 2011
on the basis of aforesaid sale deeds have to be adjudicated upon in the said lis and are not required to be adjudicated upon in the instant suit filed subsequently by allowing amendment of plaint. Consequently, the very basis of seeking amendment of plaint in the instant suit is completely misconceived.
In addition to the aforesaid, it may also be noticed that proposed amendment has been sought more than 13 years after the filing of the instant suit and there is no explanation for this long delay.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application moved by plaintiffs for amendment of plaint has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, since the suit was instituted almost 14 years ago, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
February 08, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether revision court can interfere with trial court's dismissal of application for amendment of plaint.
Whether amendment of plaint raising claim already pending in another lis is permissible.
Whether delay of 13 years in seeking amendment of plaint warrants dismissal.
Satnam Singh
Rajbir Singh
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
