Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S. Rangi Land Developers And ... vs Harminder Singh & Another on 24 September, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.5800 OF 2013
TH
DATE OF DECISION : 24 SEPTEMBER 2013
M/s. Rangi Land Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
.... Petitioner
Versus
Harminder Singh & another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Defendant no.2 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure P-
11) passed by the trial court thereby allowing application (Annexure P- 6) filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff for amendment of plaint as well as for impleadment of defendant no.2-petitioner as party to the suit and thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-9) filed by petitioner for dismissal of the suit.
Plaintiff alleged in the amendment application that agreement was executed by Baldev Singh-defendant no.1 (initially sole defendant in the suit) on behalf of defendant no.2 company having been authorized by the company. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought to implead defendant no.2- petitioner as party to the suit. It was also alleged that the agreement was actually executed on 30.03.2010 but erroneously date in the agreement was -2- CR No.5800 of 2013 mentioned as 09.02.2010. Accordingly, rectification of the agreement to this effect was also sought to be claimed by amendment of plaint. Rectification of the date of agreement in various paragraphs of the plaint was also claimed by amendment.
Defendant no.2, being caveator, filed reply (Annexure P- 7) to the amendment application and opposed the application and controverted the averments made therein.
Defendant no.1 (earlier sole defendant) also filed reply (Annexure P- 8) to the amendment application admitting the claim of the plaintiff.
Defendant no.2 also filed application (Annexure P- 9) for dismissing the suit alleging that in view of amendment application filed by the plaintiff, he has no cause of action to file the suit.
Learned trial Court vide impugned order (Annexure P-11) has allowed plaintiff's application (Annexure P-6) for amendment of plaint, subject to payment of `800/- as costs and simultaneously dismissed application (Annexure P- 9) filed by defendant no.2-petitioner for dismissal of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.2 has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner referring to impugned agreement (Annexure P-2), contended that the said agreement is dated 09.02.2010 whereas in fact stamp paper for the impugned agreement was purchased on -3- CR No.5800 of 2013 31.03.2010 and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint could not be allowed. It was also argued that by amendment of plaint for rectification of the agreement cannot be permitted.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, which are completely misconceived and meritless. At the stage of deciding application for amendment of plaint, merits of the proposed amendment are not to be adjudicated upon. It would be seen after trial as to whether claim of the plaintiff, being introduced by amendment of plaint, is to be allowed or not. However, the said adjudication can be gone into only if proposed amendment of plaint is allowed. By allowing the amendment of plaint, the trial Court has not allowed rectification of the impugned agreement. On the contrary, trial Court has permitted the plaintiff to seek the relief of rectification of agreement but whether the said relief is to be granted or not, would be adjudicated upon after trial of the suit. The amendment application was moved at the initial stage of the suit, before commencement of trial and before framing of issues. Law of amendment of pleading, before commencement of trial, is liberal. Consequently, amendment of plaint has been rightly allowed by the trial Court. Defendants have been ordered to be compensated by way of costs.
For the aforesaid reasons, the suit also could not be dismissed at the threshold on the basis of application (Annexure P- 9) filed by defendant no.2-petitioner. It cannot be said that plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit merely because plaintiff has filed application for amendment of -4- CR No.5800 of 2013 plaint. Application (Annexure P- 9) is completely misconceived and has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that there is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit.
24th September, 2013 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj'
JUDGE
Raj Kumar
2013.09.25 10:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh