145

2023:PHHC:137398

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 1199 of 2022(O&M)

Date of Decision: 20.10.2023

Naib Singh and Another

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Jaswinder Kaur and Another

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh Makkar, Advocate

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sumeet S. Brar, Advocate

for the respondent No.1.

Mr. R.P.Daaria, Advocate

for the respondent No.2.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs. Their suit

for the grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant

from interfering in their peaceful possession is pending before the trial

Court.

2.

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an

application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). In substance, the

petitioners pray for impleadment of Karamjit Singh as defendant to the suit

and consequently, permit them to challenge the correctness of the agreement

to sell dated 21.01.2014. The trial Court has dismissed the application on

the ground that the trial has commenced and now no application under

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2023.11.02 10:31

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:137398

Civil Revision No. 1199 of 2022(O&M)

2

Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint can be allowed.

3.

In this case, the defendant, while filing the written statement,

has disclosed that she has received this property in exchange of her land

with the suit land of Karamjit Singh. On the aforesaid objection, the

plaintiffs have filed an application for permission to amend the plaint and

add Karamjit Singh as a defendant to the suit.

4.

Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and

with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.

5.

The learned counsel representing the petitioners contends that

the case is now fixed for the plaintiffs’ evidence, but no substantive evidence

as yet has been led. The learned counsel further submits that the application

should have been allowed by the trial Court particularly when it was moved

on the objection of the defendant.

6.

On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the

respondent submits that this Court should not interfere in the discretion

exercised by the trial Court.

7.

This Court has considered the submissions. It is well settled

that the efforts are required to be made for conclusion of the litigation and

avoid multiplicity of the court proceedings. In this case, the civil suit was

filed in the year 2018. The plaintiffs have already filed a suit for the grant of

decree of permanent injunction claiming that they are in peaceful possession

of the same. Now, by way of amendment, the plaintiffs want to incorporate

the relief of declaration and implead the predecessor-in-interest of the

defendant. If the amendment is allowed, the litigation between the parties

can conveniently be decided finally. Originally, the suit has been filed only

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2023.11.02 10:31

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:137398

Civil Revision No. 1199 of 2022(O&M)

3

for the grant of decree of permanent injunction. It is always in the interest of

justice that the suit is decided in a comprehensive manner so as to bring

finality of the issue decided. Moreover, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17

CPC, though, requires due deligence, however, a meritorious case cannot be

thrown out only on a hyper technical objection. Reliance in this regard is

placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance

Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another

2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 4256.

8.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the present revision

petition is allowed. The plaintiff’s application for permission to amend the

plaint and to implead Karamjit