Back
G.S.SINGHVI, H.L.GOKHALE
Prithi Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Amrik Singh – Respondent
The court observed that the primary consideration in allowing amendments to pleadings is whether the amendment is necessary, relevant, and relates to the controversy involved in the case. It emphasized that the merits of the averments sought to be incorporated should not be judged at the stage of granting the amendment. The court also noted that once an amendment is allowed, it generally relates back to the date of the initial institution of the suit, unless the court explicitly restricts this application. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the intention behind amendments is to minimize litigation and that amendments based on admitted facts are typically permitted without excluding the doctrine of relation back. The court clarified that in appropriate cases, the application of the doctrine of relation back can be restricted, but in the present case, no such restriction was imposed, and the amendment was considered to relate back to the original filing date. Additionally, the court observed that the order allowing the amendment was made without any conditions, reinforcing the presumption that the amendment would relate back to the date of filing the suit.
Judgment :
This petition is directed against judgment dated 25.2.2008 of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby he dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioners and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, which had approved the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of respondent No.2 -Bakshish Singh, who is now represented by his legal representatives.
Amrik Singh (brother of respondent No.2) executed sale deed dated 21.5.1979 in favour of the petitioners and respondent No.1 in respect of 27 kanals 4 marlas land for a consideration of Rs.37,500/-. The sale deed was registered on 23.5.1979.
Respondent No.2 challenged the sale deed in Civil Suit No.353/1981 and claimed pre-emption under Section 15(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (for short, 'the Act').
The petitioners and respondent No.1 contested the suit on various grounds. They pleaded that the suit for pre-emption is not maintainable and, in any case, the same is barred by time.
On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff has got a superior right of pre-emption over the suit land? OPP
2.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
