Revision petition allowed dismissing impugned order. High Court set aside dismissal of amendment application permitting plaintiff to amend plaint subject to cost deposit.
Order dated 29.05.2019 set aside; petitioner permitted to amend plaint subject to deposit of Rs. 5000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C. R No. 4082 of 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C. R No. 4082 of 2019 Date of decision : 05.07.2019
Nand Kaur
....Petitioner
versus
Paramjit Singh and ors.
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
Challenge in this petition is to order dated 29.05.2019 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Sangrur whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed.
A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession and from dispossessing the plaintiff/petitioner from the house. On notice of the suit, the respondents/defendants sought time to file written statement and in the meantime, they trespassed and forcibly and illegally took the possession of the house in dispute during the night of 13/14.05.2016 and thereafter, filed the written statement stating that they are in possession of the house in dispute (P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the above background, the petitioner who is 75 years of age and is true owner of the
Gaurav Arora 2019.07.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
C. R No. 4082 of 2019
2
house in dispute and was in possession of the house at the time of filing of the suit, sought amendment of the suit. Learned counsel submits that the application of the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed on the ground of delay. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner will not lead any evidence.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an old lady of 75 years of age who has filed the present suit against his son and daugher-inlaw, the present revision petition stands allowed and order dated 29.05.2019 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to amend her plaint, subject to deposit of cost of Rs.5000/- by the petitioner before District Legal Services Authority, Sangrur. Thereafter, the trial Court will proceed with the case in accordance with law.
05.07.2019 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Gaurav Arora 2019.07.12 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application by an elderly plaintiff for amendment of plaint should be allowed despite dismissal on grounds of delay.
Nand Kaur
Paramjit Singh
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
