Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3498
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Narinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh And Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 2549 of 2017
Decided On : 05-10-2018
Sarju Puri, Adv., Nakul Sharma, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary and imperative nature of the rule of amendment of written statement, emphasizing the imperative to allow all necessary amendments for determining the real controversy between the parties.
Headnote:
Amendment of Written Statement - Land Dispute - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others. vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others. - [Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others. vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others.] - The court allowed the amendment of the written statement to incorporate new grounds of defense and take inconsistent pleas, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the rule of amendment and the imperative to allow all necessary amendments for determining the real controversy between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of 1 kanal of land, claiming ownership based on natural succession. The defendants, in their original written statement, contested the plaintiff's claims and sought to incorporate new grounds of defense and take inconsistent pleas through an amendment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the law of amendment of written statement is to be liberally construed and that all bona fide amendments necessary for determining the real issue between the parties should be allowed. It emphasized that the amendment of written statement stands on a different pedestal than that of the plaint and is essentially a rule of justice, equity, and good conscience.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the plaintiff to the land and the discretion of the court in allowing the amendment of the written statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rule of amendment is discretionary and imperative to allow all necessary amendments for determining the real controversy between the parties. It cited the criteria for allowing or disallowing the amendment of written statement as summarized in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others. vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, but proposed to grant costs to the plaintiff as nothing was awarded by the trial Court, making the payment of costs a condition precedent for granting indulgence by the trial Court.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SBS Nagar, whereby application filed by the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was allowed.
2. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of 1 kanal of land as shown in the site plan. Para Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint read as under:-
"2. That the plaintiff is the real brother of defendant No.1 and son of defendant No.2. The suit land including some other land was earlier ownership of Mohinder Singh, father of plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff inherited the suit land and other estate of his father Mohinder Singh on the basis of natural succession and Sh. Mohinder Singh died intestate. The mutation of the same has been sanctioned in favour of LR's of Mohinder Singh on the basis of natural course of succession. So after the demise of Mohinder Singh, the plaintiff came in possession of the suit land to the extent of his share as owner. The written compromise has been effected between the parties to the suit and the copies of the said sale deed are attached herewith.
3 That the suit land is part of the land inherited by the plaintiff and is very valuable part of land which is red line/Gair Mumkin Abadi situated within the precincts of village Jandiala. The site plan and photographs are also annexed herewith."
3. In the original written statement filed by the defendants, following pleas were incorporated in para Nos.2 and 3:-
"2. That para No.2 of the plaint is correct only to the extent that the defendant No.1 is the real brother of the plaintiff but it is absolutely false and frivolous that he is son of defendant No.2. The age of the plaintiff has been described as 35 years in the head note of the plaint while the age of the defendant No.2 is 34 years. It is absolutely wrong and incorrect that Sh. Mohinder Singh father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 died intestate but the fact is that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have been rendering services to the deceased Sh. Mohinder Singh and in lieu of services he executed a legal, valid and registered Will dated 07.09.1994 while in a sound disposing mind in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Sh. Mohinder Singh died on 10/10/2007 and on the basis of the said Will the plaintiff and defendant No.1 became owners of the property in dispute to the extent of share each. Since 1992 the plaintiff is away to a foreign country so the defendant No.1 along with his family comprising of the defendants is residing in entire house in dispute and has also obtained telephone connection in his name. The defendant No.1 is also paying the electricity bills. The defendant No.1 even paid the loan incurred by his father from Banga Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Banga and even cleared other liabilities of his father also. No written compromise was effected between the parties. In fact the said deed is void, nonest, inoperative and is not binding upon the defendant No.1 on the following grounds:-
a) That the defendant No.1 is not a party or signatory to the agreement dated 12/03/2014, as such, any terms and conditions recorded in the said document are not legally binding upon the defendant No.1.
b) That the said document is also void as the same deals with immoveable property worth more than Rs. 100/- and is unstamped and unregistered.
3. That para No.3 of the plaint is absolutely wrong and incorrect. The plaintiff has wrongly described the property in dispute as a land whereas in fact it is a built up house which is in possession of the defendants."
4. By way of application for amendment of the written statement, defendants sought to incorporate that Mohinder Singh father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had purchased 11 marlas of land from Dalmir Singh son of Gurdayal Singh vide sale deed dated 23.05.1966. The sale deed was registered with the Sub Registrar. Thereafter, Mohinder Si
