Partly allowed

Parshotam Sandal and Anr. v. Vas Dev and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2013CR/4159/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposal of two applications: CM No. 19385-CII of 2013 allowed impleading legal heirs as LRs; C.R. No. 4159 of 2012 (revision petition) dismissed challenging an amendment to plaint after trial commenced.

What did the court decide?

In C.M. No. 19385-CII of 2013, persons mentioned in para 5 of the application were impleaded as LRs of respondent No.1. In C.R. No. 4159 of 2012, the revision petition was dismissed.

Parshotam Sandal and Anr. Vs Vas Dev… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

C.M. No.19385-CII of 2013 and C.R. No.4159 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.M. No.19385-CII of 2013 and C.R. No.4159 of 2012 Date of decision:-23.09.2013

¶5

Parshotam Sandal and another

...Petitioners

Versus

Vas Dev and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the applicants.

¶13

K. KANNAN J.(Oral)

¶14

C.M.No.19385-CII of 2013

¶15

Application is allowed and the persons mentioned in para No.5 of the application are impleaded as LRs of respondent No.1.

¶16

C.R. No.4159 of 2012

¶17

The amendment of plaint was sought to amend the plaint after adding the words “and the alleged sale deed is against public policy”. The petitioners-defendants are aggrieved that such an amendment should not have been allowed on factual basis to

¶18

Asija Vijay 2013.09.25 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh

¶19

C.M. No.19385-CII of 2013 and C.R. No.4159 of 2012

¶20

-2-

¶21

support such a contention. The counsel would also contend that subsequent to the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 that came through Amendment Act 22 of 2002, the Court could not have allowed the amendment after commencement of the trial. I find that the trial court ought to have exercised appropriate attention to the change in law, brought through the amendment and must have look for some specific ground as to why it was not brought earlier. However, I will still not find a reason to interfere with the order only because it can constitute no prejudice and I will find the order itself not illegal, though procedure adopted may not have been appropriate. I do not find interference in the order under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.

¶22

September 23, 2013 ( K. KANNAN ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶23

Asija Vijay 2013.09.25 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh

Parshotam Sandal and Anr. v. Vas Dev and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshotam Sandal and Anr. v. Vas Dev 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

Church of North India Vs Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association and Ors.

Dalip etc. Vs Union of India etc.

Ram Kishan and Anr. Vs Santosh and Ors.

Pritam Singh Vs Satbir Singh and Anr.

(O&M) Janak Raj Gupta Vs Vinod Rani and Ors.

Bhop Lal Vs Balbir Singh