Disposed

Anil v. Sonia Sharma and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2016CR/6375/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioner challenged dismissal of suit and withdrawal recall. Bench opined amendment of written statement via counter claim in related suit avoids multiplicity and delay. Revision disposed without setting aside orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner-plaintiff allowed to file application for amendment of written statement by setting up counter claim in the pending suit; revision disposed without setting aside impugned orders.

Anil Vs Sonia Sharma and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

Civil Revision No.6375 of 2015 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.6375 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision:22.03.2016

Anil

... Petitioner

Vs.

Sonia Sharma and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶12

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present:Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr. S.K.S.Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶16

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶17

C.M.No.6265-CII-2016

¶18

The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Written reply and Annexures R1 to R6 are taken on record.

¶19

CR No.6375 of 2015 (O&M)

¶20

The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the orders dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure P-8) and 09.07.2015 (Annexure P-13), whereby, suit No.88 dated 31.05.2010 titled as Anil Kumar and another Vs. Sonia Sharma and others, claiming declaration vis-a-vis Will dated 19.06.2009 was dismissed as withdrawn and the application seeking recalling of the same, has also been dismissed.

¶21

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.04.04 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶22

Civil Revision No.6375 of 2015 (O&M)

¶23

{2}

¶24

Mr. Namit Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submits that counsel was not authorized to withdraw the suit. Suit was slated for petitioner-plaintiff's evidence for 30.09.2011 and on the same date, the statement was recorded. In support of his contention, relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society versus Balwan Singh, 2015(5) JT 624. He, thus, prays for setting aside of the impugned orders.

¶25

Mr. S.K.S.Bedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that during the period interregnum, property on the basis of the Will was mutated in the name of the petitionerplaintiff, but the same was contested and the matter was referred to the Assistant Collector Grade 1, wherein, petitioner-plaintiff was impleaded as respondent. Even the mutation proceedings culminated into final order and on the basis of the same, suit for possession claiming separate possession slated for defendant's evidence was filed. He further submits that in order to avoid multiplicity and delay in trial, his client would not have any objection in seeking amendment of the written statement, much less, filing of identical relief as has been sought to be restored, thus, prays for passing of the appropriate order.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that suggestion/view point given by Mr. Bedi, is fair and appropriate. Instead of pondering upon

¶27

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.04.04 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶28

Civil Revision No.6375 of 2015 (O&M)

¶29

{3}

¶30

the merits and de-merits of the present case, much less, suit would start with plaintiff's evidence, it would unnecessarily delay the adjudication of the dispute which is already pending in the competent Court as noticed above. I deem it appropriate to give opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff being defendant in civil suit titled as Sonia Sharma vs. Anil Kumar and another, to file an application for amendment of the written statement by setting up the counter claim which shall be allowed by the trial Court. The respondents herein shall not raise any objection as the aforementioned suit is at the stage of defendant's evidence.

¶31

With the aforementioned observations, there is no need to set aside the impugned orders. Accordingly, the revision petition with the aforesaid observations stands disposed of.

¶32

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶33

March 22, 2016 savita

¶34

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.04.04 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Anil v. Sonia Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil v. Sonia Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nihal Singh Vs Dharambir and Ors.

Bhajan Singh Vs Gurdial Singh and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Behlolpur Vs Joginder Pal and Ors.

M/S Shiv Dei Enterprises Vs Udmi and Ors.

Manvir Singh Vs Ramandeep Kaur and Others

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Anr. Vs Jagdish Ram and Anr.