C.R No. 2636 of 2007 (O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M No.25094 CII of 2009 and
C.R No. 2636 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision : October 27, 2009
Jagdish Kaur and others,
...... Petitioner (s)
v.
Sukhwinder Kaur & others,
...... Respondent(s)
***
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4, 12 & 13.
Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate
for respondent No.6.
Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate
for respondents No.12 & 13.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
C.M No.25094 CII of 2009
C.M is allowed and Annexure R-1 is taken on record.
C.R No.2636 of 2007
This petition has been filed against the order dated 25.4.2007
declining the application for amendment in the plaint.
C.R No. 2636 of 2007 (O&M) ::2::
The main plea taken by the trial Court is that the application
has been filed at a very belated stage (at the conclusion of the trial) and that
by doing so, the petitioners are seeking to withdraw an admission which
would cause prejudice to the respondents.
Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in fact a female
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had executed a sale deed which
was challenged and the said suit was partly decreed by holding that qua
some land the sale would not have any effect on the rights of the reversioner
who would be able to claim retransfer of the land after the death of the said
female predecessor. The exact words which were used in the decree are to
the following effect :-
“….in the result I would accept the appeal and vary the
decree of lower court to this extent that the sale shall not
affect the rights of the plaintiffs except to the extent of
Rs.927/-. In other respects the decree is maintained.
Equitable order as to the cost of the appeal is that the
party shall bear their own. Plaintiffs pleaders fee
Rs.32/-“.
As per the learned counsel that share of land was not liable for
reversion but the remaining was liable for reversion. However, the decree
was couched in negative terminology. By mistake in the instant suit, it was
originally prayed as follows :-
” It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for
declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners of
agricultural land measuring 64 kanals 19 marlas
comprised in …………, situated in village Rajpura Tehsil
C.R No. 2636 of 2007 (O&M) ::3::Phillaur District Jalandhar, and for mandatory injunction
directing defendants No.2 to 13 to hand over vacant
possession of agricultural land measuring 64 kanals 19
marlas, comprised in ………., situated in village Rajpura
Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar as entered in the
jamabandi for the year 1994-95 after receiving a sum of
Rs.927/-………”
Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that mention of
the words “Rs.927/-” is an obvious mistake. The petitioners are agitating
their rights which had been conferred upon them by the earlier decree and
by the change of the amount no essential difference arises in the relief
sought.
Counsel for respondents have defended the order of the trial
Court.
As mentioned above, the two points taken by the trial Court are
delay and the alleged prejudice caused by the withdrawal of an alleged
admission. It is no doubt true that delay in filing an application for
amendment cannot be ignored. However, while allowing the same, the
effect on the suit would have to be kept in mind. Of-course, if by
amendment an admission is sought to be withdrawn it would be a serious
matter. The present case is not one where the admission has ever been
sought to be withdrawn. A perusal of the entire plaint does reveal that the
petitioners are only seeking to enforce whatever rights were granted to them
by the earlier decree. There is no question of any admission having been
withdrawn. Needless to say harsh and pedantic view with regard to
pleadings should be avoided.
C.R No. 2636 of 2007 (O&M) ::4::
Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that now no
evidence is required to be led. I put it to counsel for the respondents that if
as a consequence of the amendment being allowed, they would be
constrained to lead any further evidence. Learned counsel are unable to
give satisfactory reply that in the eventuality of the amendment being
allowed, the respondents would have to lead any further evidence. Thus, in
my opinion, no material prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents
since, apart from the mistake in figures, both sides were fully aware of the
issues involved in the case.
In the circumstances, this revision petition is allowed, the
impugned order dated 25.4.2007 is set aside, and the application for
amendment in the plaint is allowed. Parties, through their counsel, are
directed to appear before the trial Court on 26.11.2009.
Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending
civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
October 27, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) kk JUDGE