Dismissed

Raghunandan Singh v. Bhupinder Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Aug 2013CR/307/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision dismissing trial court order rejecting amendment plea. The High Court held that allowing a contrary plea after part of plaintiff's evidence would cause prejudice, affirming the dismissal of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application to amend the written statement is dismissed; the trial court order is upheld.

Raghunandan Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh and Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR 307/2013(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR 307/2013(O&M) Date of decision:16/08/2013

¶5

Raghunandan Singh

¶6

.............Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Bhupinder Singh and another

¶9

.............Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr.G.C.Shahpuri,Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)

¶13

Defendant no.1-Raghunandan Singh has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 20.9.2012 (P6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagadhari whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

¶14

It is stated that the petitioner/defendant no.1 Raghunandan Singh alongwith father of plaintiff-Bhupinder Singh and Paramjit Singh, namely Harnam Singh had purchased agricultural land measuring 2 bighas 5 biswas vide sale deed dated 27.5.1994 in equal shares. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction primarily seeking to restrain his brother-defendant no.2-Paramjit Singh from interfering in his possession out of said ½ share of their father Harnam Singh on the basis of a family settlement between the two brothers after the death of their father Harnam Singh. Petitioner/defendant no.1 filed

¶15

Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

¶16

CR 307/2013(O&M)

¶17

¶18

a written statement that as per settlement of the sale deed an area measuring 150 square yards towards the “Western side” fell to his share and the remaining 150 square yards towards the “Eastern side” came to the share of the plaintiff and his brother. After the issues had been framed on the basis of pleadings, and the plaintiff had completed part of his evidence, an application (P4) was moved by defendant no.1 seeking to amend the written statement by taking a contrary plea that inadvertently in the written statement it was stated that the “Western side” had come to the share of defendant no.1 Raghunandan Singh whereas actually it was “Eastern portion” which had come to his share and the “Western portion” to the plaintiff and his brother as per the family settlement.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application for amendment in view of the conceded fact that the plaintiff has already led part of his evidence and at that stage a u-turn in the plea of defendant to the prejudice of the plaintiff could not be permitted.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

16.08.2013. joshi

¶22

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

¶23

Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

Raghunandan Singh v. Bhupinder Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunandan Singh v. Bhupinder Singh and Anr.

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

Kamal Singh Vs Adarsh Gaushala & Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs Bijender

Raj Kumar Vs Rajesh

Sukhdev Singh Vs Gurcharan Lal

Ravinder Kaur Vs Amritpal Singh

Jyoti Aggarwal Vs Ashutosh Aggarwal