Back
1998 Supreme(P&H) 403
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sat Pal, J.
Sushil Kumar Kaura - Petitioner
Versus
Dutt Pal Kapur - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 562 of 1997.
Decided On : 10 March, 1998
For the Petitioner:Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate.
Amendment of site plan may not be allowed if the existing site plan was prepared by a qualified person.
Headnote:
Amendment - Site Plan - The court dismissed the petitioner-plaintiff's request to amend the site plan filed along with the plaint, as both site plans were prepared by qualified persons, and the amendment was not allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-plaintiff sought to amend the site plan filed along with the plaint to bring on record the correct description of the property according to a site plan prepared at the spot by a qualified person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's contention and dismissed the petition, stating that both site plans were prepared by qualified persons, and therefore, the amendment was not allowed.
Issues: Amendment of site plan
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as both site plans were prepared by qualified persons, the petitioner-plaintiff could not be allowed to change the site plan already on record by way of amendment.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to appear before the trial court on a specified date.
Sat Pal, J. - In this case the amendment sought by the petitioner-plaintiff was with regard to the change in the site plan earlier filed alongwith the plaint.
2. Mr. Goel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that such an amendment should be allowed in the interest of justice as by way of this amendment the plaintiff wants to bring on record the correct description of the property according to site plan prepared at the spot by the qualified person. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in Sh. Kesho Masih v. Sh. Tunia Ram, 1987(1) PLR 207 and Raj Kumar v. Sh. Narain Dass, 1992(2) PLR 263.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I however do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel of the petitioners. In the present case both the site plans clearly show that they were prepared by the qualified persons. In view of this the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be allowed to change the site plan which is already on record, by way of amendment. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioners are of no assistance to the petitioners as in those cases the site plan filed alongwith the plaint was a rough site plan and the site plan sought to be brought on record by way of amendment was prepared by the qualified person, but in the present case as stated herein- above both the site plans appear to have been prepared by the qualified person. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 30.3.1998.
Petition dismissed.
