Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbinder Singh vs Dalbir Singh on 19 November, 2009
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
Civil Revision No. 6785 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6785 of 2009
Date of Decision: 19-11-2009
Harbinder Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
Dalbir Singh .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 4.9.2009, whereby an application to seek amendment of the written statement was declined.
The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that he is the sole owner of the suit property. It is the stand of the defendant that the parties, as partners of the firm, named, Govind Purl Papeer and Board Mills, Amritsar, mortgaged the suit property to the Punjab Financial Corporation vide mortgage deed dated 28.6.1982, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim to be the sole owner of the suit property.
During the pendency of the suit, the Punjab Financial Civil Revision No. 6785 of 2009 [2] Corporation sold the property by a public auction in favour of Shri Kuldip Singh. The defendant has sought to incorporate an assertion of the sale by the Punjab Financial Corporation, after the filing of the suit, in the written statement, vide an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It is the said application, which has been declined by the learned trial Court, vide the order impugned in the present revision petition.
The amendment sought is not necessary for adjudicating the dispute between the parties. The plaintiff claims to be the sole owner of the suit property. Such declaration is sought against the present petitioner alone. It is the stand of the defendant that the property was mrotgaged by the partners in favour of the Punjab Financial Corporation. It is for the defendant to prove such fact. In the absence of proof of such fact, the plaintiff may be entitled to the declaration sought for. The sale by Punjab Financial Corporation is during the pendency of the suit and will not affect the rights of any of the parties as such sale is subject to doctine of lispendens.
In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.
[ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 19-11-2009 ds