C.r.No.4566 of 2004 [1]

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Civil Revision No.4566 of 2004

Date of Decision: 31 - 8 - 2006

Hukam Singh

........Petitioner

v.

Rajinder Singh and others

........Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.PATWALIA

***

Present:

Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate

for respondent No.17.

Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate

for respondent Nos.2,5,6 and 9 to 14.

***

P.S.PATWALIA, J.

The present revision petition has been filed challenging order dated

10.9.2004 vide which the learned trial Court dismissed an application seeking

amendment of the plaint.

The learned trial Court found that the proposed amendment was

totally contradictory to the version of the original plaint and if allowed would

amount to withdrawal of an admission. The Court further found that the original

averments were supported by a detailed site plan and the proposed amendment

relied on a totally different contradictory site plan and if allowed would amount to

changing documents attached with the plaint. It was further found that the

C.r.No.4566 of 2004 [2]

applicant by way of application seeking amendment had not prayed for amendment

in the prayer clause which could again create a contradiction. It was on these

grounds that the amendment was dis-allowed.

I have heard Mr.Alok Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as also

Mr.Anil Rathee, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Mr.C.B.Goel, leaned

counsel for respondent No.17 and Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, learned counsel

respondent Nos.2,5,6,9 to 14 and have perused the paperbook.

A perusal of the original plaint which is attached as Annexure P-2

with this petition would show that it is the categoric case of the plaintiffs that in

partition proceedings initiated on 4.8.1980 out of 12 Bighas and 18 Biswas of land,

8 Bighas and 3 Biswas towards West was given to the plaintiffs and 4 Bighas 15

Biswas of land towards East was given to defendant No.1. It is further pleaded

that out of the remaining 7 Bighas of undivided land, on the basis of a settlement

made in the year 1990, 1/3^rd share was given to the plaintiffs towards West

adjoining their land. The relevant observations in the plaint are as hereunder:-

“5.

That in the partition proceedings initiated on 04-08-1980, out

of area of 12 bighas and 18 biswas, (excluding aforesaid

requisitioned area), area of 8 bighas 3 biswas of land from the

aforesaid Khasra No.3180/2051 to 2057 Min towards West, was

given to the plaintiffs and the area of 4 bighas 15 biswas of land

towards East of the aforesaid Khasra was given to the defendant

No.1. Thus, the de-requisitioned area of 7 bighas of the land of

aforesaid Khasra numbers, which was de requisitioned afterwards

and possession of the same was delivered to the owners afterwards,

remained undivided and un-partitioned.

6.

The later on, the plaintiff No.1 and his brother Inder Singh

(father of the plaintiffs No.2 and 3), defendant No.1 and defendant

No.2 and sons of defendant no.2, namely, Dalbir and Raj Rishi,

C.r.No.4566 of 2004 [3]

entered into amicable mutual settlement between themselves

regarding the area of 7 bighas of undivided land of the aforesaid

Khasra numbers which was de-requisitioned after aforesaid partition

from the court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gurgaon and in the

said amicable settlement held in the year 1990, 1/3^rd share of 7 bighas

of undivided and un-partitioned land was given to the plaintiffs

towards West adjoining to their land of 8 bighas 3 biswas which was

given to them in the partition proceedings and was existing towards

the extreme Western side of the aforesaid Khasra numbers, and

delivered the posses