CR-3218-2023 (O&M)

Page 1 of 3

113

2023:PHHC:075743

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-3218-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 24.05.2023

Shashi Gupta

...Petitioner

VS

Amrik Singh

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate,

For the petitioner.

****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Revision petition herein inter alia is to set aside impugned order

dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge

(Senior

Division),

Hoshiarpur

whereby

application

moved

by

respondent/plaintiff under order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for

amendment of plaint, was allowed.

2.

Clipped factual narrative first, as pleaded in the instant petition.

2.1.

Respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect

that he is absolute owner in possession of the shop/property situated within

Lal Lakeer of vicinity and bearing Municipal no.B-14/100/MCH situated at

Mohalla Committee Bazar, Hoshiarpur inherited from his father late Sh.

Babu Singh. It is the pleaded case of petitioner that shop was in possession

of respondent as a tenant and it is only a part of the building owned by the

petitioner. Alleged Hibanama is a forged and fabricated document is the

objection of petitioner. The respondent by way of application wanted to

amend the pleadings to introduce the said hibanama and the application for

amendment of plaint was wrongly allowed vide impugned order.

VANDANA

2023.06.02 09:51

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-3218-2023 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3

2.2.

Earlier to this, an ejectment petition was filed by petitioner-

Shashi Gupta, which was accepted by learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur.

However, at the time of contesting earlier ejectment petition or at the time of

filing the suit, respondent-Amrik Singh did not produce or rely upon the

Hibanama dated 12.04.1977 in respect of the suit property/shop bearing

No.100 stated to have been executed by one Mansha Ram son of Jawala

Singh in favour of Babu Singh i.e. father of respondent Amrik Singh.

3.

Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to

issue notice to respondent herein, as no serious prejudice would be caused to

him.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the

case file.

5.

Having seen the contents of the application for amendment of

plaint, I am of the view that for the reasons stated therein, the amendment

ought to have been allowed. That apart proposed amendment would not

either change the nature of suit nor even the relief sought therein. As regards

defence taken in reply to the application that this is second round of

litigation and while filing the earlier ejectment petition by the petitioner-

landlady, the respondent did not plead any such Hibanama, the same has

been duly justified in para 3 of the application, wherein it is clearly stated

that at the time of contesting the ejectment petition, this Hibanama dated

12.04.1977 was not in the knowledge of respondent.

6.

In any case, petitioner/defendant is at liberty to take all

available pleas in answer to the amended plaint about the genuineness,

admissibility etc. of the document, in accordance with law and the same will

be considered by learned Trial Court. That apart, trite law it is that plaintiff

VANDANA

2023.06.02 09:51

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-3218-2023 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3

has to stand on its own legs and in case, plaintiff fails to prove the veracity

or admissibility of the document in the trial, needless to say, learned trial

Court will take an appropriate call on it and proceed in accordance with law.

7.

In the premise, I see no grounds to interfere with the impugned

order passed herein and same is sustained. Revision petition is dismissed.

8.

Pending civil miscellaneous applica