Civil Revision No. 4865 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4865 of 2007
Date of decision:- 04.3.2009.
Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Wakf Board and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Pali, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 4.
JASWANT SINGH J.
Petitioner/plaintiff-Jaswant singh has filed this revision petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the
impugned order dated 10.8.2007 passed by learned Additional District
Judge, Moga whereby the application moved by him under Order 6 Rule 17
CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiffs have filed a
suit for declaration on 1.10.2003 against the respondent/defendant-Punjab
Wakf Board that they are lessees regarding the land measuring 50 kanals
comprised in Khasra No.97 min (as described in the head note of the plaint)
alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction, as the defendants
were seeking to forcibly and illegally dispossessed them. It is averred that
subsequently, since the defendants passed an order dated 30.1.2004
cancelling the lease deed of the petitioner-plaintiffs relating to the same
Civil Revision No. 4865 of 2007 -2-
land, the petitioner-plaintiffs were compelled to move the application under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC fir amendment of the plaint as well as the prayer
clause seeking to challenge the said cancellation. It is averred that the suit
was at the initial stage and the amendment would not change the nature of
the suit nor will it cause any prejudice to the defendants besides being most
essential for the just decision of the case. The application was contested by
the respondents-defendants. It was averred that the cancellation order dated
30.1.2004 provide a different cause of action to the petitioner-plaintiffs and
therefore they were free to file a fresh suit rather than seeking an
amendment of the plaint, as the amendment would relate back to the date of
filing of the suit. The amendment application was dismissed vide impugned
order dated 10.8.2007. Hence, the instant revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper book.
It is not in dispute that the order dated 13.1.2004 whereby
respondents-defendants have cancelled the lease relates to the suit land and
is further formal expression of the action, which was challenged in the first
instance by filing the suit on 1.10.2003. It also cannot be disputed that if
the petitioner-plaintiffs were to file a subsequent suit challenging the order
dated 30.1.2004, the plaintiffs and the defendants would lead substantially
the same evidence as the one in the present suit, thus, resulting into wastage
of time and effort of all concerned including the court.
Therefore, in my opinion, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the
proposed amendment deserves to be allowed as it will not change the nature
of the suit nor will it cause any prejudice to the respondents-defendants,
who shall be free to raise all objections in their written statement.
Civil Revision No. 4865 of 2007 -3-
In view of the aforesaid observations, the revision petition is
allowed and the impugned order dated 10.8.2007 is set aside and the
application moved by the petitioner-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
seeking proposed amendment is allowed.
March 04, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE