Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Namit Kumar, J.
Birender - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Chanchal and another - Respondents - Respondent
CR-1007 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-09-2023
Amendment - Joint Hindu Family - Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151 CPC - [Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC] - The court discussed the amendment sought by the plaintiff to challenge the relinquishment deed dated 25.11.2014 and applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers’s case. The court concluded that the amendment seeking to challenge the deed, which was time-barred under Section 59 of the Limitation Act, could not be allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought amendment to challenge a relinquishment deed dated 25.11.2014, alleging it to be invalid. The defendant opposed the amendment on the grounds of delay and limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment sought by the plaintiff to challenge the relinquishment deed was time-barred under Section 59 of the Limitation Act, and therefore, the impugned order allowing the amendment was set aside.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the amendment sought by the plaintiff to challenge the relinquishment deed dated 25.11.2014.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers’s case to determine the permissibility of the amendment. It concluded that the amendment seeking to challenge the deed, which was time-barred under Section 59 of the Limitation Act, could not be allowed.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order allowing the amendment was set aside.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad whereby the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been allowed subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the opposite party.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as has been narrated in the petition are that respondent No.1/plaintiff-Chanchal (minor) by projecting herself to be the constituent/coparcener of the joint Hindu Family under the kartaship of the respondent No.2/defendant No.1, for being the biological daughter of late Sh.Mohar Pal and granddaughter of respondent No.2/defendant No.1, has invoked for the declarative decree for declaring her to be the conjoint owner in possession with the defendants (petitioner and respondent No.2 herein) to the tune of 16/7 share in the suit scheduled property and as an axillary prayer has beseeched for the decree of perpetual injunction by injuncting the defendants from alienating the suit estate to any individual. The said suit was opposed by the defendants (petitioner and respondent No.2 herein) by filing a detailed written statement on 06.02.2017 in which it had clearly been disclosed that the suit land already stand relinquished by respondent No.2/defendant No.1-Rambir in favour of petitioner-Birender. After framing of the issues, the plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 17.02.2020 and the rebuttal evidence was closed on 17.03.2021. Thereafter, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed on 17.03.2020 by respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking the following amendment :-
on the ground that in the written statement filed by petitioner/defendant No.2, he had set up relinquishment deed dated 25.11.2014 alleging that respondent No.2/defendant No.1 transferred the entire 1/6th HUF share in favour of petitioner/defendant No.2 and the previous counsel had not filed any replication to the said written statement and during evidence, respondent No.1/plaintiff had contested and challenged the relinquishment deed dated 25.11.2014 said to be executed by respondent No.2/defendant No.1 in favour of petitioner/defendant No.2. The said application contested by petitioner/defendant No.2 by filing a detailed reply dated 02.03.2021. The said application having been allowed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide order dated 24.03.2021, the instant revision petition has been preferred by petitioner/defendant No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment has been sought by respondent No.1/plaintiff in view of the stand taken in the written statement which was filed way back on 06.02.2017 and the application for amendment was filed after a period of more than 03 years i.e. on 17.03.2020 and that too when the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence and for arguments. He has relied upon to proviso 2 Order 6 Rule 17 which provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. He submits that nothing has been stated in the application seeking amendment as to how inspite of due diligence, respondent No.1/plaintiff has not been able to seek amendment of the plaint before the commencement of the trial as the written statement was filed way back on 06.02.2017. He further submits th
The central legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment seeking to challenge a deed, which is time-barred under the Limitation Act, cannot be allowed.
Amendments to pleadings in civil suits must be granted if necessary for effective adjudication, provided they do not cause harm to the opposing party, affirming a liberal approach in such matters.
Amendments to pleadings may be allowed if they are essential for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties and do not change the nature of the suit.
Court ruled that procedural amendment requests should be allowed even after the trial begins, provided they clarify existing claims and do not introduce new issues.
The trial court erred in denying amendment requests essential for proper case adjudication; the amendments were not mala fide and did not alter the core defense.
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
