Civil Revision No.4733 of 2007 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4733 of 2007
Date of decision: 18.04.2009.
Sukhwinder Singh and others
Petitioners
Versus
Surjit Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
In the plaint, the averment made by the plaintiffs-
petitioners was that they are only in possession of the entire land in
suit (which, in this case, included the land comprised in Khasra
Nos.435/324, 325 etc.) During the pendency of the trial, the
plaintiffs-petitioners applied for the leave of the Court to amend the
plaint in order to able to aver therein that they are co-sharers in the
land comprised in Khasra Nos. 435/324, 325 which they had
purchased vide registered sale deed.
The learned Trial Court negatived the plea by observing
that it is a belated endeavour. In that context, it was noticed that suit
was filed on 17.5.2000, written statement/reply was filed on
Civil Revision No.4733 of 2007 -2-
****
31.5.2000, stay application was disposed of on 10.6.2000, issues
were framed on 14.12.2001, the plaintiffs-petitioners concluded their
evidence on 12.11.2005, the defendants-respondents closed their
evidence on 19.10.2006 and the matter is presently fixed for
recording of rebuttal evidence and arguments. It was also observed
by the Court that it was the third amendment application filed by the
plaintiffs-petitioners and that it was unnatural to expect that a person
who had made the purchase of land in suit a number of years ago
was not in the know of the fact that he was a co-sharer therein. The
learned Trial Court was also concerned with the fact that the
allowance of the plea shall delay the disposal of this seven years old
case.
In the context of the above indicated items of observations, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners
informed, at the very outset, that no evidence whatsoever shall be
adduced by the plaintiffs-petitioners, if the amendment plea comes to
be allowed and they would straightway proceed to address the
arguments on merits thereof.
None has entered appearance on behalf of the
respondents to resist the plea.
In view of the statement(at the bar made by the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners) and also in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the nature of the
suit will not be changed by the proposed amendment nor would
allowance of the plea aforementioned delay the disposal of the suit.
Civil Revision No.4733 of 2007 -3-
****
The party opposite could, even otherwise, be compensated by
imposition of costs. It is not a case where the allowance of the plea
shall adversely affect any right which may have come to be vested in
the respondent in the course of the trial.
The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order
shall stand set aside. The amended plaint which is already on record
shall be deemed to have been formally taken on record. If the
respondents are so inclined, they may file amended pleadings. The
learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners states at the bar that the
rebuttal evidence shall be concluded on the very date the matter is
listed before the learned Trial Court. The matter shall come up
before the learned Trial on 4.5.2009. As none appears today for the
respondent, it will for the learned Trial Court to notify the date of
hearing to the party opposite. The rebuttal evidence shall be
concluded on 4.5.2009, the arguments shall be heard on 8.5.2009
and the matter shall be disposed of thereafter. The allowance of the
plea shall be subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs.
April 18, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge