IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No.3214 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 22.1.2009.
The Goniana Cooperative Marketing-cum-
Processing Society Ltd.
....Petitioner
Versus
Mukhtiar Singh and another
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:- Mr.PS Jammu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
****
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated
February 28,2008 passed by the learned Court below whereby the
application for amendment of the plaint filed by the respondent
No1./plaintiff was allowed.
Briefly the facts are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed
a suit for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the
petitioner/defendant to release the arrears of pay from October 1999
to June 2002 along with interest. The application for amendment
was filed on November 3, 2007 when the case was fixed for
argument after completion of evidence by both the parties. By
amendment in the suit was sought to be converted into the suit for
recovery of the amount already claimed. The amendment having
been allowed the order is impugned before this Court.
C.R. No.3214 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit
was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff on May 16, 2003. In the
written statement filed by the petitioner on January 6, 2004, an
objection was taken regarding the maintainability of suit for
mandatory injunction which infact was for recovery of money. Still no
corrective steps were taken by the respondent No.1./plaintiff. The
entire evidence of the parties was complete and the case was fixed
for arguments three-four times. It was only thereafter on November
3, 2007 that the application was filed seeking amendment to convert
the suit into a suit for recovery which will change the entire nature of
the suit and relief claimed. Otherwise also the amendment could not
be permitted at the fag end of the trial of the suit.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/plaintiff submitted that the amendment sought by him will not
change the nature of the suit as earlier it was a suit for mandatory
injunction directing the petitioner/defendant for release of arrears of
pay. Now the amendment is sought to pay the Court fee to avoid any
technical objection in future. Otherwise the respondent No.1/plaintiff
does not wish to lead any evidence. It is only the pleadings are
amended. The Court can decide the case on the basis of evidence
already on record. He further submitted that as far as the objection of
the petitioners with regard to limitation for filing the suit for recovery
is concerned, the Court has already safeguarded their interest by
observing in the impugned order that the objection regarding
limitation is kept open.
C.R. No.3214 of 2008 -3-
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find
any merit in the present petition. No doubt the application for
amendment has been filed at the fag end of the trial, when the case
was fixed for arguments but still to cover up the plea of
petitioner/defendant regarding the claim made by way of amendment
of the pleadings being time barred on the date the application was
filed or it was allowed by the Court below in the impugned order the
Court has specifically kept the issue of limitation open. Once that is
so and also the fact that the respondent No.1/plaintiff stated that he
does not wish to lead any evidence in support of the amendment
made by him. I do not find any prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner as he can very well address arguments regarding the claim
made by the respondent No.1/plaintiff being time barred.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
22.1.2009 JUDGE
Reema