Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA
Kamal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Satnam Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present petition has been filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of impugned order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P7) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur in CA No.548 of 2018 titled as “Kamal Kumar Vs. Satnam Singh & Others” vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint for incorporating alternate relief of possession, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Lower Appellate Court was in manifest error in dismissing the application of the petitioner as it failed to appreciate that during the pendency of the litigation, the petitioner had been dispossessed from the suit property. It is submitted that even the learned trial Court has given a finding that the petitioner is not in possession over the suit property. As such, the petitioner had filed an application for amendment of the plaint to include prayer for grant of possession. It is submitted that therefore, the application of the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
3. No other argumen
A plaintiff must prove ownership and prior possession to seek an amendment for additional relief in a property dispute; lack thereof results in dismissal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's application for restoration of possession should be decided prior to the enforcement of the Trial Court's directions, and the....
The appellate court erred by expanding an injunction beyond established possession, undermining due process regarding ownership evidence.
The correctness of the pleadings should be adjudicated after considering the evidence in the trial, and the trial court must consider the aspect of subsequent events when dealing with applications fo....
The concept of 'Due Process' and its application in property disputes, as well as the limitations of the court's powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The appellate court cannot issue orders contrary to the appellant's interest when no cross-objection is presented, upholding that possession is protected by law even without ownership rights.
Amendment of pleadings is allowed if necessary for adjudication and does not cause injustice to the other side, as affirmed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
The law in India accords with the jurisprudential thought as propounded by Salmond, respecting possession even if there is no title to support it. Possession can only be resumed by the true owner in ....
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
