Rambir Vs Shardhanand and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Rambir Vs Shardhanand and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the amendment of the prayer clause incorporating relief of decree of joint possession alters the nature of the suit, such that the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment should be reversed in revision +1 more

Court's answer

The proposed amendment incorporating relief of decree of joint possession does not alter the nature of the suit, since the plaint as initially filed already sought declaration of the plaintiffs' possession of 2/3 share with further relief of permanent injunction

Ratio / Principle

The revision petition has no merit and is dismissed; the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment of the plaint therefore stands

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Pankaj Jain, J., oral) in CR-4063-2023 (O&M), Rambir v. Shardhanand and others (decided 06.03.2025), dismissed the defendant's revision petition against the order dated 24.04.2023 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonipat, whereby the plaintiffs-respondents' application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the prayer clause of their suit stood allowed. The suit sought declaration of ownership in possession of 2/3 share in land measuring 74 kanals 5 marlas, challenged a Will dated 21.10.1999 registered on 08.07.2005 and the consequential mutation, and prayed for perpetual injunction; the amendment added a prayer for decree of joint possession of the suit land. An earlier application by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint — on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiffs had not sought relief of possession — had been dismissed on 23.09.2022. The petitioner-defendant argued the amendment was not bona fide and was moved only to fill a lacuna after the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application. Holding: the proposed amendment qua joint possession does not alter the nature of the suit, the initial plaint having already been founded on the plaintiffs' possession with permanent injunction.

1

CR-4063-2023 (O&M)

[125] IN THE HIGH COURT OF P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

CR-4063 - 2023 (O&M) Date of D ecision : 06.03.2025

Rambir …Petitioner

versus

Shardhan a nd and others ….Respondents

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present: Mr. B.S. Bairagi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocat e with Mr. Randeep Singh Singh, A dvocate and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocat e for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Challenge is to order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the lear n ed Civil Ju d ge (Junior Division), Sonipat, whereby application filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plain t stands allowed.

[2] Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit seeking decree of declara t ion to the ef f ect that the plaintiffs are owne r in possession to the extent of 2/3 share in l and measuring 74 kanals 5 m a rlas as detailed out in the pl a int. Further c h allenge was to Will dated 21.10.1999 registered on 08.07.2 0 05 and the consequential mutation. Furthe r prayer was for grant of decre e of perpetual injunction, restraining respo n dents from interfering from the peaceful p ossession of the plaintiffs.

[3] Defendant moved an applic a tion under Order 7 Rule 11 C PC RAJNEESH SHARMA seeking r ejection of the plaint, claimi n g that the suit was barred u n der 2025.03.11 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

CR-4063-2023 (O&M)

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiffs failed to seek fur t her relief of possession. The application was dismissed vide order d a ted 23.09.20 2 2. Thereafter, the present appl i cation was moved by the plain t iffs under O r der 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the prayer cla u se, whereby t he prayer clause was amended t o the following effect:-

“ It is further prayed that a decree for joint possessio n of the suit land may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs a nd against the defendants.”

[4] The aforesaid application ha s been allowed by the learned T rial Court, h o lding that the amendment so u ght is neither mala fide nor s h all amount t o change in the nature of the su i t and allowing the application i s in the intere s t of justice as the same shall av o id multiplicity of the proceedi n gs. [5] Counsel for the petitioner- d efendant has attacked the or d er, allowing the amendment of the plaint, s u bmitting that the application is not bona fide and has been rather moved to f i ll the lacuna in the pleadings. T he same is e vident from the fact that the application was moved only a fter defendan t moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. [6] Per contra, Mr. Sood, co u nsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2, submits t h at the proposed amendment s h all not alter the nature of the suit and thus , the learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretio n in allowing t he application filed by the plai n tiffs. [7] I have heard counsel for t h e parties and have carefully g o ne through t h e records of the case.

[8] By way of proposed amendment, the plaintiffs have so u ght amendm e nt in the prayer clause incor p orating relief qua decree of j o int

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.11 18:04 possessio n . I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

CR-4063-2023 (O&M)

[9] A careful perusal of the p laint filed initially would re v eal plaintiff s ought decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs ar e in possessio n to the extent of 2/3 share with further relief of perma n ent injunctio n . In view of the initial prayer m ade in the plaint, this Court finds that the p roposed amendment qua joint p ossession does not alter the na t ure of the sui t .

[10] In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present r e vision petition, the same is orde r ed to be dismissed . [11] All pending miscellaneou s application(s), if any, st a nds disposed o ff .

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

06.03.20 2 5

‘R. Sharma'

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.11 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document