CR No. 1746 of 2012 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No. 1746 of 2012 (O&M)

Date of decision: 16.7.2012

Pal Singh

... Petitioner

versus

Bhupinder Singh and another

... Respondents

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajan Gupta

Present:

Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has impugned order dated 10.2.2012, annexure P-5,

passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), S.B.S. Nagar, whereby

application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permitting the plaintiff to amend the

plaint was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that

application for amendment has been moved after considerable delay. There

is nothing to show that despite exercise of due diligence, certain facts were

not in the knowledge of the plaintiff necessitating amendment of pleadings.

He has relied upon a judgment of apex court reported as 2012(1) RCR

(Civil) 903, J.Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Application for amendment was moved by the plaintiff on the

ground that due to inadvertence, he impleaded Sucha Singh as subsequent

vendee, whereas alienation of coparcenary property had been made in

favour of some other persons namely Pavittar Singh, Resham Singh and

Kulwant Singh sons of Sarwan Singh and Surinder Kaur. Some other

coparceners in joint Hindu family could not be impleaded earlier. Trial

CR No. 1746 of 2012 (O&M) 2

court accepted the plea holding that proposed amendment was necessary for

proper and effective adjudication of the case. Learned counsel has assailed

the finding. It appears that no substantial change in the plaint has been

sought. Merely certain parties are required to be impleaded. Learned

counsel has failed to show how prejudice is likely to be caused to the

petitioner by impleadment of certain necessary parties. There appears to be

no amendment as such in the pleadings. Judgment in J.Samuel and others

case (supra) is thus not applicable in the instant case. Prayer made in the

revision petition appears to be totally frivolous.

Petition is without any merit and is dismissed.

16.7.2012

(RAJAN GUPTA)

pk

JUDGE