In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 4848 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 4.2.2009
Sunil Kumar ..... Petitioner
vs
Smt. Sushila ..... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the respondent.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 2.8.2008 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, whereby an application filed by the
petitioner for amendment of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, was dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed petition seeking
dissolution of marriage with the respondent. In paras 7, 10 and 14 of the petition, it
was mentioned that house which is referred in these paras is owned by the father.
The amendment was sought to be made to plead that the house, in fact, is owned
by the mother of the petitioner and not his father. The application was rejected by
the court on the ground that no sale-deed was produced on record to show the
ownership of the house and also that the issues have already been framed. It is
further noticed by the learned court below that in the application filed for
correction it had been mentioned that the sale-deed was being attached but it was
not. It is this order which is impugned in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the error in the
petition occurred inadvertently as factually the house is owned by the mother and
not by his father. Copy of the sale-deed has been placed on record showing
ownership of the house in the name of Smt. Sunita Devi wife of Satbir Singh. The
sale-deed was registered on 7.11.1986.
As amendment which is being sought is supported by the sale-deed
produced on record, I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, accordingly the impugned order passed by the learned court
below is set aside and the amendment is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/-
as costs.
The petition stands disposed of.
4.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge