Dismissed

Mohan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2014CR/5379/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a revision petition under Article 226/227 challenging the lower court's refusal to allow amendment of a civil plaint. The court held that since evidence was concluded and similar pleas were previously tried and dismissed, the appealability of the amendment was barred. The impugned order was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.07.2014 refusing amendment of plaint was upheld; revision petition dismissed.

Mohan Singh and Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

105

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CM No.18292-CII of 2014 in/and CR No.5379 of 2014 Date of decision: September 03, 2014

¶4

Mohan Singh and others

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Raj Paul Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶13

CM No.18292-CII of 2014

¶14

The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Annexures P-2 to P-4 are taken on record.

¶15

CR No.5379 of 2014

¶16

Petitioners Mohan Singh and others have filed this revision petition against State of Punjab and other respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 18.07.2014 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, in Civil Suit No.54 dated 12.03.2009 with a further prayer that the application filed by the petitioners for permission to amend the plaint may kindly be allowed.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have

¶18

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CR No.5379 of 2014

¶20

-2-

¶21

gone through the record.

¶22

From the record, I find that Mohan Singh, Harmail Singh and Nanak Singh have filed suit against State of Punjab and other defendants for declaration to the effect that the letter No.169 dated 05.01.2001 and letter no.348 dated 24.01.2007 issued by defendant No.3 are illegal, null and void and defendants No.1 to 4 are not entitled to recover any amount from the plaintiffs on the basis of facts as stated in the body of the plaint and for permanent injunction, restraining defendants No.1 to 4 from recovering any amount from the plaintiffs and restraining defendants No.1 to 4 from implementing and enforcing the above-said letters Nos.169 and 348.

¶23

As per the impugned order, it had been argued by learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiffs that plaintiffs want to include order No.1348 dated 05.07.2000 issuing certificate of recovery for 1,05,48,401.75 issue by defendant No.4 and letter/order dated 09.12.2005 issued by defendant No.6 requiring the plaintiffs to deposit an amount of 1,05,48,401.75, in the head note of the plaint as well as in the prayer clause and also want to add new paras 1 A and 4A. It is further argued that due to sheer inadvertence, the plaintiffs/applicants could not incorporate the pleas in the plaint.

¶24

In reply, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 argued the trial has already commenced and application has been moved by the plaintiffs only to cause the delay. It is also argued that memo letter dated 05.07.2000 and memo letter dated 09.12.2005 are already beyond the period of limitation. It is further stated that

¶25

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

CR No.5379 of 2014

¶27

-3-

¶28

these orders were challenged by the plaintiffs in case titled as 'Mohan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others' which has been dismissed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur vide order dated 22.04.2005 and their appeal has also been dismissed on 31.01.2009 and the same is barred by principle of res-judicata also.

¶29

Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, after going through the record, held that plaintiffs want to amend the suit by seeking declaration regarding order No.1348 and letter dated 09.12.2005. The plaintiffs/applicants filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from issuing notice dated 14.07.2000 and from recovering any amount of `1,05,48,401.75 on the basis of said notice. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2002 Ex.D2 and Ex.D3. The plaintiffs filed appeal against the said judgment, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 24.02.2013 Ex.D4. Again the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that defendants have no right to recover the amount and that suit was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2008 Ex.D6 and Ex.D7 and appeal against that judgment and decree was also dismissed. Now, again the plaintiffs want to amend the plaint on the same facts.

¶30

The perusal of the record shows that the trial has already commenced. Plaintiffs have already led their evidence and defendants have also led their evidence and concluded the same. All these facts, which the plaintiffs/petitioners want to plead by way of amendment, were in their knowledge. The plaintiffs have already filed

¶31

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

CR No.5379 of 2014

¶33

-4-

¶34

two suits, which were dismissed and appeals in both the cases were also dismissed. Now, the plaintiffs again want addition in the plaint by way of proposed amendments, which is not permissible. The amendment at this stage regarding these facts, cannot be allowed.

¶35

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated

¶36

18.07.2014 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, is correct and as per law and the same is upheld.

¶37

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the

¶38

same is dismissed.

¶39

September 03, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE

¶40

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.10 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Mohan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Tarsem Singh Vs Kamlesh Kumari and Anr.

Fauja Singh Vs Samitter Singh

Swaran Chand Vs Balwinder Singh & Anr.

Ravinder Kaur Vs Ajaib Singh & Anr.

Jaibir Vs Sheela Devi

Sanjiv Garg and Ors. Vs Punjab Rban Planning & Development Authority