Dismissed

Babu Singh v. Khushpal Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Sept 2014CR/1982/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, this court examined an impugned order allowing amendment of issues under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. The court held that the lower court correctly placed the burden of proving legal necessity on the defendants. The revision petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed having no merit. The impugned order allowing amendment of issues was upheld.

Babu Singh Vs Khushpal Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR No.1982 of 2012 Date of decision: September 01, 2014

209

Babu Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Khushpal Singh and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Jitender Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for contesting-respondent No.1.

¶12

¶13

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶14

Petitioner Babu Singh has filed this revision petition against Khushpal Singh contesting respondent and Kesar Singh and other proforma-respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2012 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, whereby application dated 01.08.2011 filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for amendment of the issues has been allowed.

¶15

Notice of motion was issued and contesting respondent

¶16

No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the petition.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

¶18

gone through the record.

¶19

VINEET GULATI From the record, I find that Khushpal Singh plaintiff filed a 2014.09.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CR No.1982 of 2012

¶21

-2-

¶22

suit against Kesar Singh and other defendants for joint possession of land measuring 16.1/4 marlas as described in head note of the plaint. In that case, an application was filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for amendment of issues, stating that the onus of issue No.1 regarding legal necessity is upon the plaintiff whereas it has to be on defendants. Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur held that the onus has been put upon the plaintiff inadvertently. The onus that the sale deed is for legal necessity and for consideration, it is to be proved by defendant and onus of issue No.4 was to be on the defendant.

¶23

The perusal of the impugned order shows that no illegality has been committed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur and the order is correct and as per law. When the sale deed has been challenged that ancestral and coparcenary property has been sold without legal necessity, then it is for the defendants to prove the same that sale was for legal necessity and for consideration. At any stage, the onus of the issue can be corrected and issues can be reframed. As the onus of issue No.4 has been amended and onus put on the defendant, therefore, defendant has every right to lead evidence and the Court shall give opportunity to defendant to lead evidence on this issue and then the plaintiff can lead evidence in rebuttal on this issue.

¶24

With the above-said observations, the present petition stands dismissed having no merit.

¶25

September 01, 2014

¶26

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶27

VINEET GULATIVgulati 2014.09.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Babu Singh v. Khushpal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Singh v. Khushpal Singh 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

Punjab State Thro Forest Range Officer Balachaur Vs Sarwan Singh & Ors.

Ganesh Behl and Ors. Vs Onkar Nath Behl and Ors.

Joga Singh Vs Jaswinder Singh and Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Gurdip Singh and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation, Patiala & Anr.

Sheeshandevi and Anr. Vs Ram Mehar and Ors.