The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings must not introduce contradictory pleas or reliefs and must be supported by a valid explanation for any delay in moving the application.

ORDER

Meenakshi I. MEHTA, J. - CM NO.2278-CII of 2022

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant-petitioner for placing the copies of the zimni orders passed by the trial Court, on the record, as Annexure P-10 and for seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of the same.

2. Heard.

3. Keeping in view of the reasons as mentioned in the instant application, the same is allowed as prayed for.

CR No.1473 of 2020

4. By way of the instant petition, the revisionist-petitioner (for short 'the petitioner') has laid challenge to the order dated 14.01.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ludhiana (for short the 'trial Court') whereby the application (Annexure P-4) moved by him under Order 6Rule 17 CPC for seeking amendment in the plaint, has been dismissed.

5. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present revision petition, are that the petitioner (as plaintiff) filed a Civil Suit against the respondents (defendants before the trial Court) for seeking the decree for declaration to the effect that the suit property, as detailed in the head note of the plaint (Annexure P-1), was the property of respondent No.1 and the Sale Deed dated 11.11.2013 allegedly executed by this respondent in favour of respondent No.2 was illegal, null and void and was the result of collusion and fraud and was, therefore, liable to be set aside. Thereafter, he moved the afore-said application for seeking the amendment in the plaint by way of adding the relief therein to the effect that the suit property deserved to be reverted back to him and its ownership was required to be recorded in his name and also by way of incorporating Paragraph No.5-A in the plaint with the averments that the suit property was gifted for the welfare of the children of the Village and the said Sale Deed was executed in violation of the very purpose of 'gift' and therefore, the said gift stood revoked on this count and resultantly, the suit property deserved to be reverted back to him as the owner of the same and its possession was also required to be restored to him. However, the trial Court, vide the impugned order, has dismissed the said application.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant revision petition and have also perused the file thoroughly.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the father of the petitioner had gifted the suit property to respondent No.l-Trust for the welfare of the children in the Village but the Trust had sold the same to respondent No.2 in contravention of the very object of the gift and therefore, the suit property is liable to revert back to the petitioner but somehow, the afore-said relief as well as Para 5-A, as sought to be added in the relevant parts of the plaint by way of the proposed amendment, could not be incorporated in the original plaint whereas the same are material and necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon South Konkan Distilleries &Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Gaianan Naik & Ors. 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 395 (SCh Navtei Sinsh vs. Darbara Sinsh & Ors. 2015(2) Civil Court Cases 148 (P&H), Nirmala Honda vs. Smt Krishna Kaura (Now Deceased) Throush Her Lrs. & Anr. 2015(2) Civil Court Cases 152 (Delhi HO, Sunil Gupta vs. Narsis Khanna 2015(3) Civil Court Cases 822 (Delhi HCh and Bhola Nath and Bros. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee Resular Second Appeal NO.787-D of 1963 Decided on 08.01.1965 {Punjab Hish Court (Circuit Bench at Delhi)}.

8. However, I do not find any merit in the afore-referred contentions because a perusal of the plaint Annexure P-l reveals that the petitioner has sought therein the decree for declaration to the effect that the suit property is the property of respondent No.l-Trust by way of gift and he has, further, assailed the Sale Deed executed by the said Trust in favour of respondent No.2, on the ground of the said property being non-transf