Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Sadhu Singh —Petitioner
versus
Balvir Kaur & Ors. —Respondents
C.R.No.5174 of 2009
Decided on 5.7.2013
For the Petitioner:Sandeep Punchi, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.8 to 14:S.S. Sandhu, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment is to be allowed when it does not cause serious prejudice to opposite side.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 6 Rule 17—Amendment of plaint—Courts should be liberal in granting prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to other side or that prayer for amendment is not a bona fide one—Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid to administration of justice—A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure—Court always gives leave to amend pleading of a party unless it is satisfied that party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated by order of costs—Howsoever negligent or careless may have been first omission and howsoever late proposed amendment, amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to other side—Mere delay in making amendment application, itself, is not enough to refuse amendment, as for delay other party can be compensated in terms of money. (Paras 7 & 8)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
Paramjeet Singh, J.— Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure P4) passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Moga whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘the CPC’) vide which the application for amendment of plaint moved by he petitioner plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts for disposal of the present petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming that he is owner in possession of land measuring 8 kanas 5 marlas i.e. 1/8 share of total land measuring 66 kanals 4 marlas along with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondents No.1 to 4 from alienating, transferring, encumbering by way of sale, mortgage, exchange or in any manner or way to any person without due course of law. Apart from this suit, another civil suit No.l71/ 8.6.1998 titled as Guizar Singh etc. v. Sadhu Singh etc. relating to the estate of Nanak Singh between the parties was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Moga and was decided on 9.8.2001 and an appeal filed by the petitioner was pending.
During the pendency of appeal, the matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat and on 23.8.2003, the statements of Gulzar Singh and Boota Singh and Sh. J.S. Chahal, Advocate on behalf of the remaining defendants/respondents were recorded. The case was compromised. The said compromise is reproduced as under:
“With the intervention of the respectables and efforts made in Lok Adalat, we have compromised with Sadhu Singh-appellant and agreed to give 1/3rd share in the suit property left by our father Nanak Singh. We shall also effect compromise likewise regarding the agricultural land left by our father-Nanak Singh, regarding which civil suit is pending. The impugned decree of the learned trial Court granting 1/5th share to Sadhu Singh appellant be modified accordingly because as per compromise he is entitled to 1/3rd share. For this purpose, Halqa Kanungo be appointed as local commissioner, who shall go to the spot and demarcate 1I3rd share of Sadhu Singh appellant and 2/3rd share of the respondents. We shall equally contribute the fee of the local commissioner.”
3. The respondents had undertaken to effect compromise likewise in-this civil suit pending at the time when the appeal was taken up in the Lok Adalat. The respondents are bound by their admission made before Lok Adalat regarding the subject matter of this civil suit but out of greed and under legal advice they are not agreeing to suffer the statement of compromise in terms of compromise already effected. This illegal act of the respondents has, therefore, necessitated the petitioner to amend the plaint. The petitioner sought permission of trial Court to amend the plaint by adding para No.4(a) as under:
“That during the proceedings of this declaratory suit relating to the agricultural land of deceased- Nanak Singh was pending an appeal titled as Sahdu Singh v. Gulzar Singh etc. bearing number Civil Appeal No.85 of 12.9.2001 against the civil decree dated 9.8.2001 passed by Court of Mr. K K Bansal, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior division), Moga relating to the land situated in the abadi of the village Singha Wala which was the property of the deceased Nanak Singh was pending in the Court of Mr.J. S. Chawla, Additional District Judge, Moga, which appeal was disposed of in the Lok Adalat on 23.8.2003 on the basis of the statements of the parties other counsel i.e. the plaintiff and defendants. In this statement dated 23.8.2003 recorded in the Lok Adalat defendant Boota Singh, Gulzar Singh in person and on behalf of defendant Bishan Kaur and Gurcharan Kaur their counsel Sh. Jugraj Singh Chahal, Advocate suffered a statement that:
We have compromised with Sadhu Singh appellant and agreed to give 1/3rd share in the suit property left by our father Nanak Singh. We shall also effect compromise likewise regarding the agricultural
