Partly allowed

Gurnam Singh v. Narinder Singh Saini and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2013CR/3453/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging trial court order allowing amendment of plaint was allowed partly. The trial court was directed to modify the order by imposing precedent costs of Rs. 15,000 payable by plaintiffs before the amendment becomes effective.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified to allow proposed amendment of plaint subject to payment of Rs. 15,000 as costs precedent by plaintiffs.

Gurnam Singh Vs Narinder Singh Saini and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 3453 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 3453 of 2013 Date of decision : September 26, 2013

Gurnam Singh

....Petitioner

versus

Narinder Singh Saini and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present : Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 to 6

¶12

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶13

In this revision petition filed by defendant no. 4 Gurnam Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to order dated 8.5.2013 Annexure P/6 passed by the trial court thereby allowing application Annexure P/4 filed by respondents no. 1 to 6/plaintiffs for amendment of plaint.

¶14

Plaintiffs have filed suit vide plaint Annexure P/1 seeking declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land measuring 63 kanals 5 marlas described in the head note of the plaint and also seeking

¶15

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.27 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶16

Civil Revision No. 3453 of 2013

¶17

-2-

¶18

permanent injunction. In amendment application, the plaintiffs alleged that they want to add 10 kanals 6 marlas land more as described in the application by pleading that the said land was owned and possessed by Amar Singh exclusively. It was alleged that the aforesaid land was omitted in the original plaint due to non-issuance of jamabandi thereof by Patwari at the time of filing of the suit.

¶19

Defendants no. 2 to 4 by filing reply Annexure P/5 controverted the averments made by the plaintiffs in the amendment application and pleaded that the suit was pending for 15 years when the amendment application was filed. Adding of more land in the plaint would change the nature of the case. It was also pleaded that plaintiffs themselves tendered mutation no. 1207 Ex. P19 on 3.3.2008 and defendants had also tendered the same mutation no. 1207 Ex. D2 on 3.4.2002 wherein details of all the additional land are also there but the amendment application was filed on 8.4.2013.

¶20

Learned trial court has allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs vide order Annexure P/6 which is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶21

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the parties reiterated their respective version as noticed hereinbefore.

¶22

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.27 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶23

Civil Revision No. 3453 of 2013

¶24

-3-

¶25

I have carefully considered the matter. Amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC), whereby right of a party to seek amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial has been drastically curtailed, is not applicable to the instant suit having been instituted on 5.5.1998 i.e. long before the enforcement of the aforesaid amended provision. Prior to this amendment of CPC, law of amendment of pleadings was liberal. Consequently, in the instant case, amendment of plaint could not be declined merely on the ground of delay. However, the plaintiffs should have been subjected to heavy costs for seeking amendment of the plaint at such belated stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments although additional land sought to be added had come in their knowledge when mutation no. 1207 was tendered in evidence by the defendants as far back as on 3.4.2002 i.e. 11 years before the filing of the amendment application.

¶26

Resultantly, I find that proposed amendment of the plaint has been rightly allowed by the trial court, but the plaintiffs should have been subjected to heavy costs. Impugned order suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error to the extent of not imposing costs on the plaintiffs.

¶27

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned order Annexure P/6 passed by the trial court is modified and proposed amendment of plaint is allowed subject to payment of ` 15,000/-

¶28

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.27 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶29

Civil Revision No. 3453 of 2013

¶30

-4-

¶31

as costs precedent, payable by the plaintiffs to the contesting defendants.

¶32

( L.N. Mittal ) September 26, 2013 Judge 'dalbir'

¶33

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.27 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

Gurnam Singh v. Narinder Singh Saini and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurnam Singh v. Narinder Singh Saini 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

Didar Singh Vs Darshan Lal

Sudhir Bhargava Vs Saroj Sharma and Anr.

Presidents Welfare Association etc. Vs Maya Devi etc.

Gursharanjit Singh Vs Chanan Singh

(O&M) Jagjit Singh and Anr. Vs Gurnam Kaur

Gulzar Singh Vs Lakhwinder Singh