Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.862 of 2003 (O&M)
Smt. Sukhbir Kaur widow of Shri Pritam Singh & Anr.
v.
Shri Kartar Singh son of late Shri Hira Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 25/07/2012}
(B) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.227--Supervisory Jurisdiction--A mere error in the order ought not to be taken as sufficient for an intervention--It is the illegality of the order or a complete lack of jurisdiction that would require an intervention under Article 227. (Para 9)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Amendments to pleadings made after the commencement of trial are generally considered impermissible unless very special circumstances are established. When an amendment to the plaint is made before the start of evidence, the defendant is entitled to join issues on the additional pleadings either through amendment or additional pleadings, without needing to file a separate application. The court typically schedules the case accordingly (!) .
Under the supervisory jurisdiction, a mere error in an order does not warrant intervention unless there is illegality or a lack of jurisdiction. The court emphasizes that intervention is justified only in cases of illegality or complete lack of jurisdiction (!) .
The order in question involved the rejection of an application to strike off pleadings, specifically an amended written statement. The court observed that amendments to pleadings should relate to the amended pleadings and not introduce new, unrelated facts. In this case, the amendments were considered to be within the scope of the pleadings and did not cause prejudice to the opposing party (!) .
The amended written statement was found to be a clarification of existing matters rather than a wholly new or inconsistent defense. The court noted that amendments that merely explain or elaborate on existing pleadings are permissible, especially if they do not introduce irrelevant or prejudicial matters (!) .
The court highlighted that amendments to pleadings, including written statements, should be confined to the scope of the amended pleadings. However, amendments that spill over into unrelated matters may be allowed if they do not cause prejudice or inconsistency. If necessary, parties may file rejoinders or separate petitions explaining reasons for amendments (!) .
The court emphasized that the overall approach to amendments is liberal, especially when they serve to clarify or explain existing pleadings, and that amendments should not be rejected merely because they introduce new details, provided they do not prejudice the other party (!) .
The court also clarified that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is supervisory and should only intervene in cases of illegality or lack of jurisdiction, not for mere errors or irregularities in orders. The exercise of such jurisdiction should be cautious and limited to prevent unnecessary interference (!) .
The court dismissed the petition challenging the amendments to the written statement, concluding that the amendments did not cause prejudice or breach procedural principles, and upheld the order rejecting the application to strike off the pleadings (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The civil revision is against an order rejecting an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rules 16 and 14 read with 151 CPC for striking off the pleadings in the statement dated 06.02.2003. The grievance of the petitioners was that the written statement which had been filed by the defendants in answer to the plaint as originally filed was sought to be amended subsequently introducing several paragraphs in the written statement which were inconsistent with the original contentions raised in the written statement. The plaintiff would contend that when the plaintiff made an amendment to his pleadings, the amendment which the defendant could have made or added to the pleadings ought to be consequential to the amendment brought by the plaintiff and the defendant could not have broughtforth new defences which had no bearing to the amended pleadings in the plaint.
2. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners would draw my attention to the original plaint which he had filed for which written statement had also been filed and point out to the amendment which he had subsequently made to the plaint and want a comparison of the written statement filed subsequently introducing new paragraphs which had no bearing to the plaintiff’s amendment. In particular, the learned counsel would point out that para 2 as originally contained in the plaint was with reference to a purchase of property in her name for which the defence as contained in the written statement (unamended) was as follows:-
“2. Para no.2 of the plaint is totally incorrect and is denied. House No.186, Model Town, Karnal was purchased by Shri Pritam Singh with his own money the plaintiff was a pauper at the time of marriage and has not source of income at the time of purchase of the house, the plaintiff married Pritam Singh fully knowing the due to a major operations, he was unable to bear her a child. She simply married him for his wealth at the instance of her brother Surinder Singh with whom she was living at the time of her marriage. The plaintiff has not intentionally given the details of purchase of his house.”
3. It can be noticed that as regards the plaintiff’s assertion that she had purchased the property in Model Town through a sale deed dated 29.04.1966, the contention in defence originally was that the plaintiff was a mere pauper at the time of her marriage with Pritam Singh and that she had no source of income for the purchase. The defence also was that the plaintiff had not intentionally given the details of purchase of the house. Through an amendment in the written statement, apart from rephrasing the opening sentence with reference to the time of purchase as having been made much before 1966 in which he was living before that and has named this house as PRITAM GHAR and that he even renovated it made some construction and solemnized the marriage of his sister before this alleged sale and that further he even opted for joining the Haryana cadre being a resident of Karnal, he added the following sentence:
“.......The sale deed if any is a fabricated, false and sham transaction prepared after the death of previous wife of Pritam Singh.........”
The last portion of the written statement is what the plaintiff is particularly aggrieved about in that it says the sale deed (29.04.1966), if any, is fabricated, false and sham transaction prepared after the death of previous wife of Pritam Singh. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would argue that while the original written statement was that it was a benami purchase, the defendant was trying to plead the sale itself sham through the subsequent amended written statement. I cannot find any serious inconsistency at all for the benami transaction is understood in two ways: either as a property purchased in the name of another (benamidar) for the benefit of the real owner or, that the transaction of sale itself does not vest title. In other words, although it
SupremeToday
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
