Haryana Wakf Board Through Its … vs Prem Singh Jogi on 4 August, 2009

C.R. No.398 of 2009                                                    1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                     Date of Decision : 04.08.2009


Haryana Wakf Board through its Estate Officer            .....Petitioner
            versus
Prem Singh Jogi                                          .....Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.


Present : Mr.Vineet Yadav, Advocate, for
          Mr.A.R.Takkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

           Mr.Brijender Kaushik, Advocate,
           for the respondent.
                   -.-

Surya Kant, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

24.11.2008, passed by the Wakf Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge,

Ambala, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17

read with Section 151 C.P.C., for amendment of the plaint sought at the

stage when the case was fixed for final arguments.

Learned Tribunal has held that both the parties have concluded

their evidence and the case was fixed for arguments, therefore, no

amendment in the pleadings is permitted at this stage.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the

pleadings have been perused.

The petitioner has filed a suit for vacant possession of

“Mosque Rojawali by removal of unlawful and unauthorised possession and

construction situated within the abadi deh of village Durana (Mehandi Ka
C.R. No.398 of 2009 2

Durana)…..”. The respondent-defendant filed the written statement with a

specific plea that “the defendant has got no concern with the Mosque and

the wakf property as referred to above”. He has further averred that he has

never tried to occupy the mosque building forcibly and illegally and he is in

possession of his own property only.

After both the parties led their evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff

sought amendment of the plaint in order to give the demarcation/boundaries

of the property for which it has filed the suit for possession. No such

amendment, at this stage, can be permitted as it would render the entire

exercise already undertaken into futility and put the parties back to square.

The proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the Act No.22 of

2002, also expressly bars such like amendments.

Dismissed.

04-08-2009                                             (SURYA KANT)
  Mohinder                                                 JUDGE