Back
Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI & H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.
Prithi Pal Singh & Another
Versus
Amrik Singh & Others
SLP.(C) No. 15272 of 2008
Decided On : 13-02-2013
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Rule 17 - Order 6 - Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act - Section 17A and 15 – Argument - Sale deed was registered - Appeal filed by petitioners and respondent was dismissed by lower appellate Court vide judgment reading whereof reveals that petitioners and respondent filed another application for amendment of written statement which was rejected by lower appellate Court - Merits no serious argument appears to have been advanced on behalf of petitioners and this is reason why lower appellate Court did not independently deal with findings recorded by trial Court on various issues including one relating to limitation – Held, Amendment only new ground has been incorporated and not new relief - Since suit seeking relief of pre emption was instituted with time by introduction of new ground to support relief suit cannot become time barred - Present case doctrine of relation back amendment has to apply as no new or fresh relief has been incorporated - Apart from above there is another reason to decline prayer of appellants - It is settled law as is evident from ratio of judgment in case of Siddalingamma supra that court in appropriate case while allowing amendment may restrict application of doctrine of relation back and permit amendment from date of amendment - In present case order of Apex Court is clear and unambiguous in its terms - No such restriction has been imposed – Contrary amendment rejected by this Court has been allowed primarily on ground that amendment is based upon admitted facts on record – Court considered view that intention of Apex Court in allowing amendment was is to apply amendment without excluding doctrine or relation back which normally and generally governs amendment of pleadings – Petition dismissed
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. Whether the sale consideration was fixed in good faith and was actually paid by the defendants? OPD
3. If issue. No. 2 is not proved, what was the market value of the suit land at the time of the impugned sale? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD
5. Whether the zare-panjam has been deposited within time? OPP
6. Whether the suit is bad for partial pre-emption? OPD
7. Whether the suit property is co-parcenery and joint Hindu family property qua the plaintiff and vendor? OPD
8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file and maintain the present suit? OPD
9. Whether the present suit is benami and for the benefit of vendor? OPD
10. Whether the suit is within time? OPP
11. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
12. Whether the defendants have effected any improvement over the suit land. If so to what amount? OPD
13. Whether the defendants are entitled to recover stamps and registration charges in the eventuality of the suit being decreed. If so to what amount? OPD.
14. Relief."
Subsequently, the petitioners and respondent No.1 sought and were granted leave to amend the written statement leading to the framing of the following additional issue:
"Whether suit land is not pre-emptible in view of Section 17A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act."
After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties the trial Court decided issue Nos. 1, 4 to 13 in favour of respondent No.2. The additional issue was also decided in his favour. As a sequel to this, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.2.
The appeal filed by the petitioners and respondent No.1 was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.5.1983, a reading whereof reveals that the petitioners and respondent No.1 had filed another application for amendment of the written statement, which was rejected by the lower appellate Court. On merits, no serious argument appears to have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners and this is the reason why the lower appellate Court did not independently deal with the findings recorded by the trial Court on various issues including the one relating to limitation.
During the pendency of the second appeal filed by the petitioners, respondent No.2 applied for amendment of the plaint and claimed that he was entitled to relief as co-sharer of the suit property. The learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 22.5.1986 allowed the second appeal and rejected the application made by respondent No.2 for amendment of the plaint.
This Court reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge, granted leave to respondent No.2 to amend the plaint and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh d
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
