SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Jaydeep Kaur & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Gurmail Singh - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 1158 of 2021(O&M)
Decided On : 04-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate, for the Appellant, Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established is that the allowance of counter-claims should be approached with a balanced perspective, considering the cause of justice and the need for procedural fairness.

Headnote:

amendment - specific performance - Order 6 Rule 17, Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC - 145/146 Cr.P.C - 191 Bighas and 6 Biswas - counter-claim - possession - tenants - Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri - procedural justice - substantial justice - counterclaim - written statement - delay - permission to amend - cause of action - issues - speedy justice

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The defendants sought to amend their written statement to add a counter-claim for possession and mesne profit. The trial court dismissed the application for amendment on grounds of delay and lack of jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court erred in finding colossal delay and lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs' claim to be in possession as tenants was not conclusive, and the defendants were entitled to set up a counter-claim. The court cited the Ashok Kumar Kalra case to support the allowance of counter-claims and emphasized the need for a balanced approach to procedural justice.

Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in seeking amendment, jurisdiction over the relief of possession, and the defendants' entitlement to add a counter-claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants were not guilty of delay and were entitled to set up a counter-claim despite the plaintiffs' claim of tenancy. The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach to procedural justice and the allowance of counter-claims to serve the cause of justice.

Final Decision: The trial court's order was set aside, and the defendants' application for permission to amend the written statement was allowed.

ORDER

Anil Kshetarpal, J (Oral). - The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

2. Through this revision petition, the correctness of an order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangrur, on 22.03.2021, while dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC for permission to amend the written statement in order to add the counter claim has been assailed.

3. Some facts are required to be noticed.

4. Gurmail Singh, Daljit Singh and Harmeet Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell with respect to Vi share of land measuring 191 Bighas and 6 Biswas. The plaintiffs claim that Sh. Gopal Inder Singh had entered into an agreement to sell on receipt of earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/-against the total sale consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-with them on 21.04.1995. The plaintiffs have further claimed that as per the agreement, further payment of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid on 30.05.1995,whereas the payment of Rs.6,20,000/- was paid on 11.08.1996. The plaintiffs claim that they are already in possession of the entire property as tenants.

5. Sh. Gopal Inder Singh died before the filing of the suit. Smt. Amrit Kaur was impleaded as defendant being the legal heir of Gopal Inder Singh. She defended the suit. However, she also died during the pendency of the suit. Jayadeep Kaur and Udhey Singh were brought on record as the legal representatives. The suit came to be decreed on 10.01.2011. Jayadeep Kaur and Udhey Singh filed an appeal against the same. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed for impleading the aforesaid heirs as party defendants in their independent capacity. The application was dismissed by the learned first appellate court. However, on 30.07.2015, the High Court while setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, allowed the (the Petitioners herein) impleadment in their independent capacity. A Special Leave Petition against the judgment passed by the High Court has already been dismissed.

6. On 04.02.2020, the learned first appellate court, after noticing the aforesaid developments, considered it appropriate to remand the case back to the trial court for decision afresh after a de-novo trial. The petitioners herein appeared before the trial court on 04.02.2020. They filed a written statement on 14.02.2020, which was unsigned. On 03.03.2020, the trial court dismissed the application of the plaintiffs for disposing of the suit. Another application for striking the names of the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant was also dismissed vide an order dated 09.03.2020. The Court further noticed that the newly added defendants (the petitioners herein) have filed an unsigned written statement. Therefore, the court granted an opportunity to the defendants to either sign the written statement or to file a fresh written statement which is complete in all respects. Thereafter, due to the outbreak of corona virus pandemic, the proceedings remained stalled for quite some time. On 01.02.2021, when the case was taken up after a period of one year, the petitioners filed their written statement along with a counter-claim. Thereafter, on 19.02.2021, the plaintiffs' application filed under Order 6 Rule 18 CPC was dismissed by the trial court. The Court, after noticing that the fresh written statement filed by the petitioners is at variance with the written statement filed on 14.02.2020, granted last opportunity to the petitioners to file their written statement in terms of the order dated 09.03.2020. Thereafter, on 22.02.2021, the petitioners filed an application for permission to amend the written statement in order to a add counter-claim. The petitioners claimed that in view of the facts pleaded and a written compromise dated 20.01.2008, neither Gopal Inder Singh nor Smt. Amrit Kaur were owners of the land. The petitioners pray for the relief of possession as also for mesne profit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top