Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balwinder Singh And Others vs Jagir Singh And Another on 10 July, 2014

                     CR-4415-2014
                                                                                              :1:

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

                                               Civil Revision-4415-2014
                                              Date of Decision : 10.7.2014

                     Balwinder Singh and others

                                                                                .....Petitioner(s)

                                                        Versus

                     Jagir Singh and another
                                                                              .....Respondent(s)

                     Present :       Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate
                                     for the petitioner(s).

                     1.        To be referred to the Reporters or not?
                     2.        Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                            *****

                     RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)

If the application under Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiffs for production of additional evidence i.e. judgment and decrees of a Civil Court in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants which have attained finality has been dismissed vide order dated 23.9.2013, that alone would not preclude the plaintiffs from applying under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint to introduce the factum of a previous litigation between the parties to confine any suit for declaration simplicitor. In the previous suit, the revenue entries in favour of the defendants were set aside as illegal and null & void by the learned trial Court. That litigation for one reason or the other was not mentioned in the subsequent suit. That error was sought to be rectified by the plaintiffs. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been allowed by the same learned trial Judge vide order dated 16.5.2014 with costs of ` 1000/-.

2014.07.14 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4415-2014 :2: The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the previous order passed under Section 151 CPC for production of additional evidence would operate as res judicata between the parties and therefore the application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC deserved to be declined.

I am unable to appreciate this argument. The remedy under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is independent and has to be decided in terms of ingredients of that Section. If the case is at the rebuttal stage, then the learned trial Court in its discretion has permitted the amendment with a view to settle the real controversy between the parties. By allowing such an application, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner nor any injustice would result to the defendant. It is plausible view taken by the learned trial Court which is not open to interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

No merit. Dismissed.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE July 10, 2014 Paritosh Kumar Kumar Paritosh 2014.07.14 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document