C.R.No.5483 of 2004 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.5483 of 2004
Date of Decision 12.11.2009
Mam Chand
........ Petitioner
Versus
Smt.Nirmala Devi
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondent.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court against the
order of the trial court dated 4.8.2004, whereby his application filed under
Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the
plaint was declined.
The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against his wife defendant-
respondent for declaration to the effect that he is exclusive and absolute
owner of the residential house alongwith the land underneath thereto,
bearing plot No.52-A, Municipal No.B-VI/1283/113-A/45-C, measuring
19′ x 57′ and consisting of three rooms, gallery, kitchen, bath-room, latrine
and open court yard.
In the said suit, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under
Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint to
give description of the sale deeds as under:
“Sale Deed No.4466 dated 19.10.1983 which
was executed in favour of Ishwar Dutt son of
Sh.Ram Adhar and Smt.Nirmala Devi wife of
C.R.No.5483 of 2004 -2-Sh.Mam Chand, resident of House No.718,
Prem Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, Sale Deed
No.1723, dated 18.6.1985 executed in favour of
Nirmala Devi wife of Mam Chand, resident of
House No.715, Prem Nagar, Yamuna Nagar and
Sale deed No.5780 dated 12.1.1984 executed in
favour of Nirmala Devi wife of Mam Chand,
resident of House No.715, Prem Nagar, Yamuna
Nagar.”
The same having been declined by the trial court, the plaintiff-
petitioner approached this Court for setting aside of the impugned order
dated 4.8.2004.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone
through the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed
amendment is mere clarificatory in nature and does not at all change the
nature of the suit nor will cause any prejudice to the respondent.
According to the learned counsel, the same ought to have been allowed by
the trial Court. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in
Lakha Singh Vs. Sawinder Singh, 1998(1) RCR (Civil) 727, and
Bhupinder Singh Vs. Smt.Balwant Kaur, 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 397, in
support of his contention.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the plea regarding the sale deeds dated 19.10.1983,
18.6.1985 and 12.1.1984, which has now been sought to be incorporated
by way of the amendment in the plaint was specifically mentioned in para
No.2 of the written statement and, therefore, the amendment cannot be
allowed at this belated stage.
Learned counsel for the defendant further submitted that there
C.R.No.5483 of 2004 -3-
were sufficient opportunities available to the plaintiff-petitioner to file the
application for amendment of the plaint, at an earlier point of time as the
written statement in this case was filed as far back as on 9.8.2002, but it
has been filed in the year 2004 with an ulterior motive to delay the
proceedings of the civil suit. Therefore, the instant revision petition may be
dismissed.
The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for declaration claiming
exclusive and absolute ownership of the property in dispute. However, as
submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, the
amendment which is now sought to be incorporated with regard to sale
deeds of the years 1983, 1984 and 1985, the same finds mentioned in para
No.2 as well as in para No. 11 of the written statement. Paras 2 and 11 of
the written statement read thus:
“2. That Para No.2 of the plaint is absolutely incorrect and
the same is denied. It is absolutely incorrect that the
plaintiff purchased the plot in question as alleged. It is also
absolutely incorrect that the plaintiff has paid any amount.
All the allegations contained in the para are false, frivolous
and vexatious. The defendant alongwith one Shri Ishwar
Dutt son of Shri Ramadhar purchased Plot No.52
measuring 57′ x 15′ from Shri Netar Pal son of Shri Som
Dutt vide registered sale-deed dated 19.10.83 for a
valuable sale consideration of Rs.4000/- out of her own
funds which she raised by arranging loan from various
sources. On 12.1.84, the defendant purchased ½ share of
Shri Ishwar Dutt out of the aforesaid plot vide registered
sale-deed dated 12.1.84 for a sale consideration of
Rs.2000/- and in this manner the defendant became owner
in possession of Plot No.52 measuring 15′ x 57′. On
C.R.No.5483 of 2004 -4-18.6.85, the defendant purchased part of the plot No.52-A
measuring 57′ x 4′ situated towards North of Plot No.52
purchased earlier by the defendant for a sale consideration
of Rs.10000/- after purchasing the aforesaid portion plot
No.52-A the defendant became owner in possession of
total plot measuring 19′ x 57′, afterwards the defendant
also acquired some area adjoining the said plot. The entire
area has been purchased vide three separate sale-deeds
as stated above and not vide two sale-deeds as alleged in
this para. It clearly shows that the plaintiff is not at all
aware of the actual facts regarding the purchase of the
plots by the defendant.
11. That Para No.11 of the plaint is absolutely wrong and
hence denied. The sale-deeds in respect of the house
have been executed in favour of the defendant on
19.10.83, 12.1.84 and 18.6.86(85) and no sale-deed has
been executed in the year 1982 as alleged. The sale
consideration for all the sale-deeds was paid by the
defendant herself, as stated above. No cause of action
ever accrued to the Plaintiff against the defendant.”
A perusal of the record clearly shows that the defendant-
respondent had specifically pleaded that the sale deeds had been
executed on 19.10.1983, 12.1.1984 and 18.6.1985, and no sale deed was
executed in the year 1982 as alleged. No explanation has been furnished
for not filing application for amendment of the plaint at the appropriate time
when written statement was filed.
The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner,
i.e. Lakha Singh and Bhupinder Singh’s cases (supra), do not advance the
case of the petitioner as the amendment was allowed keeping in view the
C.R.No.5483 of 2004 -5-
facts and circumstances of those cases.
In view of the above, I do not find any ground for interference
with the impugned order passed by the trial court.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
November 12, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) rishu JUDGE