IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Namit Kumar, J.
Hari Singh – Appellant
Versus
Balvir Singh & Ors. – Respondents
CR No. 3868 of 2022
Decided On : 01-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case regarding property possession. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against the amendment application. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court analysis on amendment application criteria. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. conclusion setting aside the trial court's order. (Para 18) |
Judgment
Mr. Namit Kumar, J. :-
CM-13981-CII of 2023
1. This application has been filed by the applicant-petitioner for exemption from filing certified copies of zimni orders dated 21.05.2022 to 17.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nihal Singh Wala as Annexure P-5 and for permission to place on record true copies of the same.
2. Allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-5 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
CR-3868 of 2022
1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner/defendant No.2 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 21.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nihal Singh Wala, whereby application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, has been allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 for possession of land measuring 5-1/4 marlas jadid situated within the red line area of village Bilaspur, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from demolishing, constructing or changing the nature of the suit property in any manner and further restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property by way of selling, mortgaging, gift, exchanging, transferring forcibly, illegally and without due course of law. Upon notice, petitioner/defendant No.2 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that he was owner in possession of the house in question and was residing with his family members in the said house for so many years and defendants No.1 and 3 had no concern with the house in question. The trial Court framed issues on 30.04.2019 and the case was adjourned to 23.05.2019 for evidence of the plaintiff. On 05.08.2019, PW-1 Jarnail Singh and PW-2 Balvir Singh were present and examined. On 19.11.2019, PW-1 Jarnail Singh was cross-examined and PW-2 Balvir Singh was partly cross-examined. On 05.03.2020, PW-3 Jaswinder Singh and PW-4 Jasvir Kaur were present and examined. PW-5 Balour Singh was partly cross-examined and case was adjourned to 19.03.2020. Thereafter, due to Covid-19 pandemic outbreak, the proceedings of the case were adjourned. On 24.08.2021, case was adjourned to 12.10.2021 for cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-5 and the case was adjourned on various date for the said purpose. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application dated 10.01.2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint, which has been allowed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nihal Singh Wala, vide impugned order dated 21.05.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court has committed grave error in allowing the application of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint, which is in flagrant violation of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. He further contended that in the present case the trial had already commenced and after commencement of trial the trial Court could not have allowed the amendment application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff as it was not maintainable. He further contended that respondent No.1/plaintiff has nowhere stated in the application seeking amendment in the plaint that amendments sought to be made in various paras of the plaint were not in his knowledge initially at the time of preparing the plaint and that after due diligence those facts came to his knowledge lateron. He further contended that respondent No.1/plaintiff b
Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu and others
Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha and Others
Bakshish Singh v. Amar Singh and another
J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others
Jai Singh Dahiya v. State of Haryana and others
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another
Man Kaur (dead) By LRS v. Hartar Singh Sangha
Pandit Malhari Mahale v. Monika Pandit Mahale and others
Rajkumar Guraward (dead) through LRS. v. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and Another
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which reads as amendment of pleadings.
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide amendments and a liberal approach to avoid multiplicity of litigations while considering applications for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of due diligence in seeking amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial, as well as the purpose of the amendment to cu....
Amendments to pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC should be liberally allowed unless they cause serious injustice or change the nature of the suit.
Amendments to pleadings post-trial require showing of due diligence, and must not alter the fundamental nature of the case, or cause undue prejudice to the opposing party.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.