Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sikander Kaur Pannu vs Pardeep Balu And Others on 26 September, 2019

Author: Ritu Bahri

Bench: Ritu Bahri

                                                                             112

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                               CR No. 6114 of 2019
                                               Date of decision: 26.09.2019

Sikander Kaur Pannu                                         ...Petitioner

                                      V/s.


Pardeep Balu and others                                     ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI.

Present:     Mr. Tejibinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

                          ***


RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral).

The petitioner has come up in revision against the order dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure P-4) whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was for permanent injunction and the defendants had encroached the suit property. He has argued that the application was filed after framing of the issues but before the evidence of the plaintiff.

A perusal of the order dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure P4) shows that in the written statement filed on 05.12.2008, a specific stand taken by the defendants that they are owners of possession in the suit property pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 07.01.2000 and they had raised construction over the said property after filing written statement on 05.12.2008. The suit for permanent injunction was filed on 15.11.2008 and the application for amendment of the plaint was filed on 18.10.2014 i.e. 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2019 15:42:24 ::: CR No. 6114 of 2019 -2- after a lapse of 6 years and keeping in view the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it cannot be a case that the plaintiff could not have amended plaint before the commencement of trial.

The trial Court while referring to the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Vidyabai & others Vs. Padmalatha and another 2009(1) RCR(Rent)120 has rightly dismissed the application.

Revision is dismissed accordingly.




26.09.2019                                        (RITU BAHRI)
Divyanshi                                            JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned          :                   Yes/No
Whether reportable                 :                   Yes/No




                                        2 of 2
                     ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2019 15:42:24 :::