Baljinder Singh vs Meeto Wife Of Mukand Singh on 25 November, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                          Civil Revision No.5977 of 2005(O&M)
                          Date of Decision 25.11.2009

Baljinder Singh
                                                     ...... Petitioner

                          VERSUS

Meeto wife of Mukand Singh
                                                     ...... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present:     Mr.S.C.Chhabra, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.R.V.S.Chug, Advocate,
             for the respondent.

                          *****

A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):

Aggrieved against the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by

District Judge, Mansa, allowing an application for amendment of the plaint

at the appellate stage, this petition has been preferred.

Earlier the decree suffered by Meeto in favour of Baljinder

Singh was passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mansa vide order

dated 21.02.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for correction of the

judgment and decree which was accepted on the admission made by Meeto-

respondent on 15.05.1993. The suit for declaration challenging the decree

as well as the mutation dated 27.07.1994 was filed by the respondent on

15.04.1996 which was dismissed by the lower Court on 07.05.2003. The

appeal against the said judgment is pending before the appellate Court.

During the pendency of appeal, Meeto-respondent moved an application for

amendment of the plaint for adding the relief qua the order dated

15.05.1993 which was accepted.

Civil Revision No.5977 of 2005(O&M) -2-

Arguments heard. It is the judgment and decree which could

only be challenged on correction of the said decree, the order of correction

emerges in the judgment and decree itself and there was no requirement of

challenging the order of correction. However, while challenging the

judgment and decree, the plaintiff cannot be debarred to urge and prove that

the correction was also got made in her absence. There was no difficulty for

her to prove that these documents were forged and fabricated in order to

assert and strengthen her plea that the judgment and decree under challenge

was bad. The Appellate Court while allowing the amendment at the

appellate stage should have continuously and carefully proceeded to allow

such amendment when the rights of the parties stood already adjudicated

upon. The suit was preferred way back in the year 1996. Now after 13

years, the plaintiff-respondent has moved the application for amendment.

Anyway, since the order of correction having been emerged in the original

judgment and decree would follow the fate of the judgment and decree.

Thus, this petition is accepted; the impugned order is set aside

and the respondent is not debarred from proving that the correction was also

got made in her absence.

(A.N.Jindal)
Judge
25.11.2009
mamta-II