Remanded

Kuldeep v. Sukhbir and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Oct 2013CR/1846/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a revision petition to modify a court order. The plea for amending the written statement to change boundary owners and location was rejected as an attempt to introduce a different property. An admission regarding an earlier suit against a third party found in a certified copy was formally accepted as incorporated in the written statement.

What did the court decide?

The expunged order dismissing the application for amendment to the written statement was modified. The application for amendment regarding boundaries was declined; the plea regarding prior litigation

Kuldeep Vs Sukhbir and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

C.R. No.1846 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.1846 of 2013 Date of Decision.22.10.2013

¶5

Kuldeep son of Dharam Chand

.......Petitioner

Versus

Sukhbir and others

......Respondents

Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate with Mr. Kanisth Ganeriwala, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶16

-.-

¶17

K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)

¶18

The revision petition is against the order dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement brought at the instance of the defendant after the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence and when it was his own turn to offer evidence. The defendant sought to contend that the boundaries mentioned in the property which he claimed to be in his possession was wrongly mentioned and therefore, four boundaries would require to be changed. He also wanted to contend that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit with reference to the same against the third party and he had it withdrawn and that had definite relevance to the contentions raised in suit.

¶19

As regards the first plea regarding the misdescription in the property said to be in his possession, I find that the misdescription is not Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.25 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

-2-

¶21

C.R. No.1846 of 2013

¶22

merely with reference to some error in extent or reference to khasra number but it is with reference to the boundary owners and also location of the gali or the road. I find that the defendant could never be ignorant of his own property which he claimed to be in possession and there could not have been mistake with reference to the names of boundary owners. There could not be any mistake with reference to the location of gali or a street. The attempt was to introduce a wholly different property and I do not think that the defendant could be allowed benefit of bringing an amendment which is at variance with what had already been contended by him. The application seeking for permission to amend the description was, therefore, not justified at all. 3. As regards the petitioner's plea that the defendant had omitted to bring on record institution of an earlier suit by the plaintiff, the counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent gives to me a certified copy of the statement said to have been filed by the defendant where there is a reference to the earlier proceedings and shows that copy of the statement produced before the Court as Annexure P-1 is not really true copy of the written statement filed. The plaintiff has no objection to allowing for retention of the portion of the written statement as contained in the certified copy. I will reproduce the same for the sake of clarity so that parties do not take up this objection again at the time of trial. Para 1 contained in the certified copy reads as follows:-

¶23

“The boundaries which have been shown by the plaintiffs in this para are completely wrong and baseless. The site plan is not according to the spot, which shows that the plaintiffs had never remained in possession of the same, hence question for their dispossession does not arise. All the

¶24

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.25 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

C.R. No.1846 of 2013

¶26

-3-

¶27

allegations made in this para are false and concocted one and based on twisted facts. It has been reliably learnt that there had been many litigations of the plaintiffs with Mahinder son of Diwana, Bijender s/o Surja and now Om Parkash son of Bhim Singh regarding the plot No.575 or some other plot (adjoining) and now after losing the legal battle with the above said three persons, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the answering defendants in collusion with said Om Parkash and Halka Girdawar and further succeeded in obtaining the report of local commission dated 14.10.2009, which is completely wrong and baseless and without notice to the answering defendants.”

¶28

This shall be seen as available in the written statement already and if it

¶29

is not, the same shall be taken as incorporated. The plea regarding

¶30

amendment of the boundary alone is declined.

¶31

The impugned order is modified and the revision petition is

¶32

disposed of on the above terms.

¶33

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶34

October 22, 2013 Pankaj*

¶35

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.25 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Kuldeep v. Sukhbir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep v. Sukhbir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Passi Vs Meenakshi

Karambir Singh Vs Jaibir & Ors.

Jdr Improvement Trust Vs Pritam Singh

State of Punjab Vs Khushi Ram

Ram Dulari and Ors. Vs Jasbir Kaur and Ors.

Jangir Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh & Ors.