Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shish Ram And Anr vs Laxmi Narain And Ors on 30 October, 2014
CR No.7346 of 2014 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.7346 of 2014
Date of decision: October 30, 2014.
Shish Ram and another
... Petitioners
v.
Laxmi Narain @ Kallu Ram etc.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON
Present: Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. (Oral):
Dismissal of application of the applicant-plaintiffs/petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as also under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC vide order of 30.9.2014 of the lower court, forms genesis of this revision petition. The applicant-plaintiff/petitioners had sought impleadment of defendant No.9 as a contesting party and consequently also wanted to change the relevant clause commensurately.
Perusal of the paper book reveals that the applicant- plaintiffs/petitioners had filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants had become owners of the suit land and thus names of defendants No.1 to 3 were liable to be removed from the revenue record. Shelter was taken under the provisions of the Vesting of Proprietary Rights Act, 1953 to claim occupancy tenancy rights.
During the course of trial, out of proforma defendants No.4 to 9, defendant No.9 diverting from the line of action of the plaintiffs, filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs which tremorized the VINOD KUMAR KADYAN 2014.11.04 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.7346 of 2014 -: 2 :- plaintiffs forcing them to make an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as also under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for changing status of defendant No.9 from the proforma defendant to a contesting defendant.
Now the question posing for answer is as to whether amendment in the pleadings sought by the applicants-plaintiffs/petitioners is necessary? In other words, is the amendment sought for by the applicant- plaintiff/petitioners, if not allowed, would result in non-adjudication of the matter in controversy between the parties?
If we go through the impugned order as well as the chronology of events in this litigation, it is evident that defendant No.9 was a party to the litigation. In fact, even written statement has been filed on behalf of LRs of defendant No.9 as back as on 6.8.2013. Whether defendant is contesting the claim of the plaintiff or is supporting his cause is known only by the pleadings put forth by the defendants. Defendant No.9 through his LRs was contesting the claim of the applicant-plaintiff/petitioners, had become crystal clear to them on 6.8.2013 itself when the written statement was preferred by them clearly introducing discordant notes against the cause of the petitioner/plaintiffs.
Since the contest had emanated from the side of heirs of defendant No.9, issues were framed by the trial court and witnesses produced by the plaintiffs were cross examined by defendant No.9 (through his LRs) who had also produced his independent evidence. The suit is now at the stage of adducing rebuttal evidence and for arguments and thus is at the verge of final adjudication. Whether a defendant is a non-contesting or a contesting party, does not change the pleadings of the plaintiffs or the strategy of its litigational plan. Plea of the applicant-plaintiffs/petitioners for transposing LRs of defendant No.9 as contesting defendants instead of proforma defendants even otherwise in legal parlance is of no significance.
VINOD KUMAR KADYAN 2014.11.04 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.7346 of 2014 -: 3 :-Counsel for the petitioners, citing Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, (1992) 2 SCC 524 (SC), Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.), Amritsar v. Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association, Amritsar, 1998(4) RCR (Civil) 154 (P&H) and Sewa Singh v. Piara Singh and another, 2014(3) Law Herald 2073 (P&H), states that since defendant No.9 is a necessary party, he has to be transposed as a contesting defendant.
Authorities cited in the facts and circumstances of the case, when transposition of already existing defendant No.9 from proforma defendant to contesting defendant is neither necessary nor warranted nor is going to change the nature, content and substance of the litigation, are not applicable to the case in hand.
There is no ground for interference with the well written and reasoned order.
Dismissed.
[Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon] October 30, 2014. Judge kadyan
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VINOD KUMAR KADYAN 2014.11.04 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh