Allowed

Pritam Singh v. Sukhpal Kaur and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2018CR/5662/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed application to amend plaint in civil suit regarding land possession. Court permitted amendment to claim joint possession as co-sharer, stripped off non-suited judgment, and set aside impugned order preventing amendment to avoid multifarious litigation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; amendment of plaint allowed with caveat against leading fresh evidence.

Pritam Singh Vs Sukhpal Kaur and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

C.R. No.5662 of 2016 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.R. No.5662 of 2016 Date of Decision.17.04.2018

Pritam Singh

......Petitioner

Sukhpal Kaur and another ........Respondents

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶9

Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Amandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for the respondents.

¶11

-.-

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶13

The revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.03.2016 (Annexure P-1) whereby the application submitted on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff qua amendment of the plaint to claim relief of possession as well as joint possession of the suit land by adding para No.10A and valuation of the suit in para No.15 has been dismissed.

¶14

Mr. Surinder Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the suit bearing No.149 of 2010 for declaration by challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.10.1988 titled as “Sukhpal Kaur Vs. Pritam Singh” in respect of land measuring 45 kanals 14 marlas as half share of land measuring 91 kanals 8 marlas to be illegal, null and void being result of fraud along with permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the suit land. Though both the parties concluded evidence, necessity arose to claim possession as well as joint possession as in case of succession of the suit, status of the petitioner-plaintiff would be of a co-sharer, therefore, there

¶15

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.04.25 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

C.R. No.5662 of 2016 -2-

¶17

would be no need for filing a separate suit but the Court below declined the application on the premise that the trial had already commenced. The aforementioned amendment is essential and necessary and would prevent the multifarious litigation.

¶18

Mr. Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the order under challenge is perfectly legal and justified and does not call for interference, as in case the application is allowed, it would tantamount to de novo trial, which is not permissible. No explanation has come forward of exercise of due diligence.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The petitioner-plaintiff had moved application for seeking amendment of the plaint when the petitioner-plaintiff was leading evidence. Since there was no stay with regard to further proceedings except of passing of the final order, the defendants have already concluded their evidence.

¶20

Mr. Surinder Garg has made a statement that the petitionerplaintiff would not lead fresh evidence in respect of the proposed amendment. The relief sought is an ancillary one and in case the suit fails, it cannot prevent the petitioner-plaintiff from filing fresh suit.

¶21

However, in view of the aforementioned, I am of the view that the trial Court should not have non-suited the petitioner-plaintiff as it would prevent multifariousness of the litigation. Moreover, the respondentsdefendants would also be at liberty to amend the written statement by taking all possible objection, which shall be kept open and decided at the final stage. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of costs of `5000/- to be paid to the respondents to defray the litigation expenses and the amendment application is allowed. The petitioner-

¶22

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.04.25 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

C.R. No.5662 of 2016 -3-

¶24

plaintiff is permitted to file the amended plaint with a caveat that the petitioner would not be permitted to lead fresh evidence. Needless to say that the respondents-defendants shall be at liberty to file the amended

¶25

written statement.

¶26

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶27

April 17, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No

¶28

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.04.25 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pritam Singh v. Sukhpal Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Singh v. Sukhpal Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kirpal Singh Vs Krishan Kumar Singla and Anr.

Gram Panchayat Village Guddha Th.Panch Vs Randhir Singh & Ors.

Boby Vs State of Haryana

Dharamveer @ Sethi Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.