Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Nirmal Singh, J.
Ajit Singh
Versus
Sulakhan Singh
Civil Revision No. 3581 of 2002,
Decided On : MAY 13, 2003
Amendment - Property Dispute - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court discussed the application for amendment of the written statement, where the respondent sought to change the stand from being a tenant to a coparcener. The court held that allowing the amendment at that stage would amount to de novo trial and would not be justifiable under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for possession of land against the respondent, claiming that the land was allotted to him in a partition proceeding. The respondent, in the written statement, initially claimed possession as a tenant but later sought to amend the statement to claim possession as a coparcener.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that allowing the amendment at that stage would amount to de novo trial and would not be justifiable under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendment to the written statement, changing the respondent's claim from being a tenant to a coparcener, should be allowed at that stage of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment sought by the respondent, which would set up a new case, should not be allowed at that stage of the proceedings as it would amount to de novo trial and would not be justifiable under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.
Final Decision: The civil revision was accepted, and the order allowing the amendment to the written statement was set aside. The trial court was directed to dispose of the case expeditiously.
Nirmal Singh, J.
1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurdaspur vide which the application filed by the respondent for the amendment in written statement has been allowed.
2. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that petitioner Ajit Singh has filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 11 kanals 2 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Saraspur against the defendant Sulakhan Singh. The plea of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the land has been allotted to him alongwith other land in the partition proceeding vide the order of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Gurdaspur and petitioner has been delivered symbolic possession of the land allotted to him in partition. The respondent who is son of the petitioner has been cultivating the suit land only in the capacity of the licencee. When the petitioner went to take actual delivery of possession of the suit land through Girdawar Halqa, the respondent obstructed the delivery of possession and refused to hand over the possession of the suit land and a suit for possession of land has been filed. The respondent has sought the amendment by pleading in the written statement that he is possession of the suit land as a tenant since 1984 and the Khasra Girdwaries from Sauni 1985 onwards are in his favour and he is shown as Gair Dakhilkar. He has also pleaded that he has obtained temporary injunction against the petitioner and is in legal possession of the suit land as a tenant which is well within the knowledge of the petitioner.
3. The respondent filed an application for the amendment of written statement and in para 2 of the said application, it has been pleaded that the worked tenant has been written inadvertently and infact the respondent is in possession of the suit land being a coparcener as a suit land is coparcenary property, therefore, respondent wanted to delete the word tenant and wants to insert the word owner.
4. On notice, the petitioner contested the application and pleaded that the joint land has been partitioned amongst the co-sharers i.e., Pritam Singh, Bhagat Singh and Ajit Singh vide order passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. The suit land has been fallen to the share of the petitioner as per order of partition and respondent is occupying it as a licencee. Whereas as per case pleaded by the respondent in the written statement is that he is occupying the suit land as a tenant and this plea has been reiterated by the respondent twice in the written statement filed by him. The petitioner has been cross examined by the respondent on the ground of tenancy. It is denied that the word tenant has been mentioned in the written statement inadvertently but it has been mentioned intentionally. It was further pleaded that the proposed amendment amounts to alteration or substitution of a new cause of action on the basis of which original defence was taken. The proposed amendment shall cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. The case is fixed for arguments and the amendment to the written statement would tantamount to de novo trial.
5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior-Division) Gurdaspur vide order dated 5.6.2002 allowed the application of the respondent.
6. Aggrieved by which, present civil revision has been preferred.
7. Mr. Parveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that case is at the arguments stage and the respondent by way of proposed amendment wants to set up a new case and in the written statement he has taken a specific plea that he is in possession of the property as a tenant and in the amended written statement he has changed the stand and has pleaded that property is a coparcenary and he is in possession as a coparcener and not as a tenant. He submitted that when a party sets up a new case, the amendment should not be allowed.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, learned counsel for the re
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
