Jangsher Singh vs Rohtash Singh And Others on 9 September, 2009

C.R. No. 5162 of 2009                                                  [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                CHANDIGARH.

                                 C.R. No. 5162 of 2009

                                 Date of Decision: September 9, 2009



Jangsher Singh

                                      .....Petitioner

             Vs.

Rohtash Singh and others

                                      .....Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                          -.-

Present:-    Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                   -.-



M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

The plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated August 10, 2009

dismissing his application for amendment of the plaint after the defendant-

Rohtash Singh has led his evidence.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the reasons for

dismissing the application, given by the trial Court is that the amendment

cannot be permitted at belated stage and that it will cause delay in

adjudication of the matter.

C.R. No. 5162 of 2009 [2]

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts

and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff in his suit for possession has

challenged a decree dated July 19, 1994 in a case-Rohtash Singh Vs. Ram

Devi, inter-alia on the ground that the decree had not been registered and

that no transfer legally be made. He has also taken up the plea in the plaint

that fraud has been played with Ram Devi as well as with the Court. The

plaintiff has sought the amendment of the plaint after the defendant-Rohtash

Singh in his cross-examination had made some statement pertaining to bank

accounts of Ram Devi.

Plaintiff claims that the thumb impression of Ram Devi affixed

in the court before passing of the decree do not tally with the thumb

impression of Ram Devi retained in the Bank record of Punjab and Sind

Bank. He wants to take up a plea that defendant No.1 had got executed the

decree by producing some other lady in place of Ram Devi.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the

pleadings and the impugned order in reference to the amended provisions of

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, I am of the opinion that the amendment has been

sought long time after the commencement of the suit and that the plea of

fraud having been played on the Court has already been taken by the

plaintiff. It will always be open to the plaintiff to satisfy the trial Court

regarding Ram Devi having not been produced in the Court without seeking

the amendment of the plaint. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the

application for amendment on the ground that the amendment is not

permitted at belated stage.

C.R. No. 5162 of 2009 [3]

In view of the above observation, no ground is made out for

interference.

Dismissed.

September 9, 2009                                       (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                               JUDGE