The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of a plaint amendment application. The proposed amendment sought to register facts of mortgage and concealment arising during the suit. The single judge held that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applied and no amendment was necessary or required.
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.
I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH
Ci vi l Revi si on No. 8149 of 2017 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 02. 12. 2019
Gur i nder bi r Si ngh
…. . Pet i t i oner
ver sus
Amar j i t Si ngh and ot her s
CORAM: - HON' BLE MRS. JUSTI CE ALKA SARI N
Pr esent : Mr . Gur si mr an Si ngh, Advocat e f or t he pet i t i oner Mr . Puneet Shar ma, Advocat e f or t he r espondent s
ALKA SARI N, J. :
The pr esent r evi si on pet i t i on has been f i l ed chal l engi ng t he or der dat ed 26. 10. 2017 wher eby t he appl i cat i on f i l ed by t he pl ai nt i f f / pet i t i oner f or amendment of t he pl ai nt was di smi ssed.
By way of t he pr oposed amendment , t he
pl ai nt i f f / pet i t i oner want ed t o br i ng on r ecor d t he f ol l owi ng f act s: -
“ 3- That t he pl ai nt i f f want s t o amend t he pl ai nt by way addi ng t hi s f act i n par a No. 5- A as under : -
“ 5- A That dur i ng t he pendency of t he sui t one of t he def endant namel y Har deep Si ngh ( Def endant No. 9) by conceal i ng t he r eal f act s have got a l oan of Rs. 7 Lacs f r om Br anch of Andhr a Bank vi l l age Bar odi and mor t gage t he par t of t he pr oper t y measur i ng 8 Mar l a i . e. 8/ 253 shar e i n Khasr a No. 41/ / 11/ 1( 1- 9) 20/ 4( 1- 16) 42/ / 15/ 2( 2- 1) 16( 7- 7) and r egar di ng t hi s f act a Rapat No. 211 dat ed 26- 11- 2015 i s al so r ecor ded and i n t he j amabandi f or t he year 2009- 10 t hi s f act i s ment i oned t hus t he ent r y r egar di ng mor t gage of l and i s wr ong, i l l egal , nul l and voi d and t he def endant No. 9 was not havi ng
PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.07 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 8149- 2017
- 2 -
any r i ght t o mor t gage t e ( si c ) pr oper t y i n quest i on as t he pl ai nt i f f i s havi ng hi s shar e i n t hi s pr oper t y. ”
5- That t he pl ai nt i f f al so want t o amend t he pl ai nt by addi ng par a No. 5- B whi ch i s as under : -
Bot h t he event s sought t o be i ncor por at ed by way of pr oposed amendment t ook pl ace dur i ng t he pendency of t he pr esent sui t and, hence, t he doct r i ne of l i s pendens as pr ovi ded under sect i on 52 of t he Tr ansf er of Pr oper t y Act , 1882, woul d appl y. The pl ai nt i f f - pet i t i oner has not sought any amendment i n t he r el i ef cl ause of t he pl ai nt . The t r i al Cour t whi l e di smi ssi ng t he appl i cat i on has gi ven det ai l ed r easons f or di smi ssi ng t he appl i cat i on f or amendment and has hel d t hat t he pr i nci pl es of l i s pendens as embodi ed under sect i on 52 of t he Tr ansf er of Pr oper t y Act , 1882, woul d be appl i cabl e and, as such, t her e was no r equi r ement f or amendi ng t he pl ai nt .
PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.07 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR- 8149- 2017
- 3 -
I t i s al so t o be not i ced t hat t he amendment of t he pl ai nt has been sought at t he st age when t he mat t er i s f i xed f or r ebut t al evi dence.
I do not f i nd any mer i t i n t he pr esent r evi si on pet i t i on, as t he pr oposed amendment s, whi ch have been sought t o be i ncor por at ed by t he pl ai nt i f f / pet i t i oner , ar e nei t her necessar y nor r equi r ed, i nasmuch as, t he event s t hat ar e sought t o be i ncor por at ed woul d be gover ned by t he pr i nci pl es of l i s pendens and no pr ej udi ce woul d be caused t o t he pl ai nt i f f / pet i t i oner i n case t he appl i cat i on i s not al l owed.
I n vi ew of what has been st at ed above, I do not f i nd any mer i t i n t he r evi si on pet i t i on and t he same i s di smi ssed.
( ALKA SARI N) JUDGE
NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO
PARKASH CHAND 2019.12.07 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment of plaint seeking facts arising during pendency of suit should be allowed under the doctrine of lis pendens.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurinder Bir Singh
Amarjit Singh
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
