CR No.3796 of 2022 (O&M)

Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:045881

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(103)

CR No.3796 of 2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 20.03.2023

Brahm Prakash

...Petitioner

Versus

Dharam Chand and another

...Respondents

AND

CR No.3371 of 2022 (O&M)

Brahm Prakash

...Petitioner

Versus

Dharam Chand and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate

for the respondents.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

CM No.10388-CII of 2022 and

CM No.11632-CII of 2022

Applications are allowed as prayed for.

CR Nos.3796 and 3371 of 2022

This order shall dispose of the abovementioned two Civil Revision

petitions, which have arisen from the impugned order dated 02.04.2022, copy of

which has been appended as Annexure P-9 by which the plea of the petitioner-

appellant seeking amendment in the plaint so as to seek alternate relief of

possession and also amendment in the grounds of appeal, has been declined by

the trial Court.

JYOTI

2023.03.28 15:01

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgmentt

CR No.3796 of 2022 (O&M)

Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:045881

2

Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant argues that the

petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to

be the owner in possession of the land projected in the heading of the suit and

the said suit was rejected by the trial Court vide Order dated 13.09.2017. One of

the grounds taken by the trial Court for dis-allowing the relief was that the

consequential relief of possession has not been sought.

Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated

13.09.2017, appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which is still pending for

adjudication. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner-appellant

filed two applications. First application was for seeking amendment in the

prayer clause of the plaint so as to seek alternate relief of possession and second

application was filed for suitably amending the grounds of appeal. The said

applications have been dis-allowed by the Lower Appellate Court vide order

dated 02.04.2022, which order is under challenge in the present Civil Revision

petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the ground

taken by the lower Appellate Court is that there is no provision under law to

allow the amendment in the plaint at the appellate stage and further, the

amendment if allowed, should not cause prejudice to the defendants.

Learned counsel argues that as per the Appellate Court if the prayer

clause and the grounds of appeal are amended, the same will cause prejudice to

the defendants, which is incorrect, as the appeal is to be decided on merits and

only amendment sought is in the relief clause of the plaint and the grounds of

appeal and the said amendment will not change the nature of the suit or the

appeal, which is pending consideration before the Lower Appellate Court as the

JYOTI

2023.03.28 15:01

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgmentt

CR No.3796 of 2022 (O&M)

Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:045881

3

evidence has already been led by the parties and the appeal will be decided on

the basis of facts and evidence already on record.

Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants argues that the

petitioner should have been vigilant to incorporate the prayer of possession

keeping in view written statement filed by the defendants and as the petitioner-

appellant failed to suitably amend the plaint at the relevant stage in the appeal,

the said amendment should not be allowed as the same will delay the

proceedings and the said delay will cause prejudice to the defendants.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through

the record of the case with their able assistance.

It is a conceded position between the parties that the appeal

preferred