C.R. No. 4478 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 4478 of 2009
Date of Decision: December 14, 2009
Pardeep Kumar Seth
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Dr.Nishu Kharbanda and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Vide impugned order dated April 30, 2009, an application filed
by plaintiff- respondent for amendment of the plaint has been allowed
taking into consideration the stage of the case. By way of amendment, the
plaintiff-respondent has been permitted to incorporate the following
additional plea, alongwith supplementary additions:-
“iv) That the plaintiff wants to add para No.3-A in her
plaint which reads as: “That the defendant No.1
C.R. No. 4478 of 2009 [2]
grandfather, namely, Late Shri Thakar Dass s/o Jia
Lal had purchased the plot owned and possessed
by defendant No.1 from its original owners S/Shri
Shiv Parshad etc. vide registered Sale deed 338
dated 11.12.1951. The said plot measures 40 sq.
yards i.e. east-west 9 gatha each and north-south 6
gatha each total measuring 2 biswa 14 biswansi of
Hidyatpur Chawni, Gurgaon and the mutation of
sale in favour of Shri Thakar Dass S/o Late Jia Lal
was sanctioned on 19.3.1952 bearing No.455 and
a Titamma was also carved out. While sanctioning
the mutation the plot so purchased by late Thakar
Dass was given the number as 711/35/2 while the
gali of eastern side was given the number as
710/35/1 and the remaining land of Khasra No.35
of Hidyatpur Chawni was given the number as
35/2. After the death of Shri Thakar Dass and his
son Shri J.N. Seth the property was inherited by
defendant No.1.”
The trial Court formed an opinion that the abovesaid
amendment, if allowed, will not change the nature and character of the suit
and that the facts which are sought to be brought on record are necessary to
determine the real controversy between the parties.
C.R. No. 4478 of 2009 [3]
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment
has been sought by the plaintiff- respondent with an oblique motive to grab
the property of defendant and that the plea which is sought to be
incorporated by way of amendment was already known to the plaintiff.
After hearing counsel for the defendant- petitioner, I am of the
opinion that mere allowing the amendment will not tentamount to admitting
the facts pleaded in the plaint. The amendment, in case allowed, would help
the Court to ultimately determine the real controversy existing between the
parties once for all. Besides this, the amendment has been allowed before
the framing of the issues i.e. prior to the commencement of the trial.
The defendant- petitioner will have sufficient opportunity
during the course of trial to substantiate his plea that a wrong amendment
has been incorporated contrary to the actual facts existing on the record.
No ground is made out for interference in the order allowing
the amendment of plaint- respondent.
Dismissed.
December 14, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE