Allowed

Radhika Arora v. Dr. Santosh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2019CR/4085/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the revision petition challenging the dismissal of an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. The Court set aside the order and permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint to include facts about property purchase funding, subject to a ₹10,000/- cost deposit.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.03.2019 dismissing the amendment application is set aside; petitioner permitted to amend plaint subject to deposit of cost Rs.10,000/-.

Radhika Arora Vs Dr. Santosh and Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

C. R No. 4085 of 2019 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C. R No. 4085 of 2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.07.2019

Radhika Arora

....Petitioner

versus

Santosh and anr. ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶10

Present: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶13

Challenge in this petition is to order dated 18.03.2019 (P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Amritsar whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed.

¶14

A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that plaintiff/petitioner filed an application to incorporate para No. 3 to the effect that she had spent the amount for the purchase of the property in dispute by selling her other property at Anand Avenue, Amritsar. After the sale of the above property, she deposited sale amount in her bank account bearing No. 1191432795 in Central Bank of India Katra Ahluwalia Branch, Amritsar from where the petitioner paid the sale consideration for the purchase of her share in the property in question.

¶15

Learned counsel submits that till date not even a single evidence has been recorded and the matter is at initital stage i.e plaintiff's evidence. The petitioner moved the present application immediately after

¶16

Gaurav Arora 2019.07.12 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

C. R No. 4085 of 2019 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

framing of the issues.

¶20

Learned counsel has referred to replication filed by the petitioner to the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 wherein the petitioner has stated that it is being denied that she never paid her part of consideration for purchasing the property in question. She has paid the amount regarding her share from her own pocket. But inadvertenly the petitioner admitted regarding the total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/being paid by the defendants.

¶21

Learned counsel submits that the observations made in the impugned order can have larger repercussions during trial.

¶22

Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, the present revision petition stands allowed and order dated 18.03.2019 (P-6) is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to amend her plaint, subject to deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner before District Legal Services Authority, Amritsar. Thereafter, the trial Court will proceed with the case in accordance with law.

¶23

05.07.2019 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶24

Gaurav Arora 2019.07.12 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Radhika Arora v. Dr. Santosh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika Arora v. Dr. Santosh and Anr.

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

Attya Vs Hakam and Ors.

Angrej Singh Vs Karandeep Maini

Mohan Lal and Anr. Vs Mohan Singh

Nand Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh and Ors.

Pritam Singh Vs Ved Parkash and Ors.

Avtar Singh and Another Vs the Executive Engineer