Punjab-Haryana High Court
Savitri vs Pirthi Singh & Others on 27 February, 2013
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CR No.1264 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.1264 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: February , 2013
Savitri ...Petitioner
Versus
Pirthi Singh & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J.(oral)
Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2013, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar dismissing the application for amendment of plaint.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order of the trial court is wholly unsustainable. Amendment sought by plaintiff/ petitioner ought to have been allowed as she did not want to lead any further evidence. Reliance is placed on judgment reported as Abdul Rehman and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ruldu and Ors., 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil)
481. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It appears that plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that she alongwith defendants No.7 and 8 be declared owners in possession of 1/3rd share in the ancestral property as described in the plaint. She also prayed that two release deeds dated 26.6.2007 and 16.7.2007 are null and CR No.1264 of 2013 2 void. Further prayer was made for injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the property. As the suit neared culmination, instant application was moved for amendment of plaint. Plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to challenge decree dated 25th February, 1989, mutation sanctioned pursuant thereto, also release-deed dated 20.8.2001. It was pleaded that at the time of preparing arguments it was noticed that these documents had not been challenged inadvertently. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to seek annulment of these documents as well. Prayer was resisted by the defendants submitting that prayer for amendment had been made at a highly belated stage as case was now fixed for arguments. The factum of passing of judgment and decree dated 24.2.1989 and release- deed dated 20.8.2001 was disclosed by the defendants in the written statement filed on 8.12.2007. However, plaintiff had moved the application after five years of filing the written statement. Limitation would also come in the way of the plaintiff.
After considering the matter, trial court declined the prayer for amendment. I find no legal infirmity with the order. It is evident that written statement was filed on 8.12.2007 in which there was clear mention of decree and release deed, now sought to be challenged. It is inexplicable why application has been moved after five years of filing of written statement. Admittedly, case is now at the stage of rebuttal and arguments. Petitioner has not been able to show that despite due diligence, she could not seek amendment earlier, thus, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would be attracted. In my considered view the judgment in Abdul Rehman's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant CR No.1264 of 2013 3 case. It is matter of record that both the documents sought to be challenged, were disclosed by the defendants in the written statement filed on 8.12.2007. However, petitioner failed to seek amendment at that stage. Application is highly belated. Trial has not only commenced but is about to culminate. This revision petition is, thus, without any merit and is dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
February , 2013
'rajpal'