Lal Singh vs Mintu And Another on 5 February, 2009

Civil Revision No.4009 of 2008                                  -1-

                                      ****


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH


                         Civil Revision No.4009 of 2008
                         Date of decision: 5.2.2009


Lal Singh                                                 ...Petitioner

                                   Versus

Mintu and another                                      ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.


Present:     Mr. Munish Prabhaker, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. S.K.Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents.


                                      *****

S.D.ANAND, J.

The plaintiff-petitioner filed the impugned suit on a precise plea

that he was a licensee under Puran Singh, the original allottee of that shop

under the Municipal Corporation who died on 16.9.1993. In the plaint, that

date of death was mentioned. In the testimony at the trial as well, the

plaintiff-petitioner mentioned the date of death of Puran Singh as

16.9.1993.

Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner applied for the leave of the

Court to amend the plaint in order to aver that the date of death of Puran

Singh was 16.9.1983 ( and not 16.9.1993). The learned Trial Court

declined the application by observing that the allowance thereof would

amount to holding of a de-novo trial. In that context, it was noticed that the

evidence of the parties had already been concluded and the date of death
Civil Revision No.4009 of 2008 -2-

****

of Puran Singh was “very crucial in order to decide the controversy.”

The view obtained by the learned Trial Judge deserves

affirmation. There is no dispute with the factual averment that date of

death of Puran Singh would have a crucial bearing on the adjudication of

the controversy. The plaintiff-petitioner did not apply for amendment till the

conclusion of evidence of both the parties. Even if, for the sake of

arguments, the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed to amend the plaint, his

testimony recorded at the trial cannot be allowed to be amended. Infact,

there is no request made by the plaintiff-petitioner for the leave of the Court

to obtain his recall/re-examination as a witness as at present. The date of

death in the course of testimony is in accord with the date of death given in

the plaint. If year of death of Puran Singh is amended in the plaint, the

evidence adduced at the trial (in the statement of plaintiff/petitioner qua the

date of death) would become inadmissible because it would not be in

accord with the pleadings at the trial.

In the totality of circumstances of the case, it is obvious that

there is no force in the petition which shall stand dismissed.

February 05, 2009                                  (S.D.Anand)
Pka                                                   Judge