Karanjit Singh & Anr vs Jagmohan Singh on 22 October, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Karanjit Singh & Anr vs Jagmohan Singh on 22 October, 2016

Bench: Raj Mohan Singh

Civil Revision No.7069 of 2016 (O&M)                                    1

111
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                   Civil Revision No.7069 of 2016 (O&M)
                     Date of Decision: 22.10.2016

KARANJIT SINGH & ANR
                                                    ......Petitioners
       Vs

JAGMOHAN SINGH
                                                    .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate
        for the petitioners.

            ****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J (Oral)

[1]. Challenge made in this revision petition is to the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), Amritsar vide which application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was allowed. [2]. The proposed amendment was allowed on the premise that due to inadvertent error on the part of the leaned counsel for the plaintiff exact description of revenue record with reference to khewat and khatauni of the land in question could not be depicted in the plaint, whereas khasra numbers remained the same without there being any change.

[3]. The amendment was claimed to be clarificatory in 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2016 23:30:08 ::: Civil Revision No.7069 of 2016 (O&M) 2 nature as the basic structure of the plaint was not to be changed. No issue was required to be framed, nor any evidence was required to be led. Jamabandi for the relevant year was already on the record and, therefore, defendants were not taken by surprise.

[4]. The proposed amendment would not in any manner prejudice the case of the defendants, as no inconsistent plea was sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. It is a settled principle of law that all bona fide amendments are to be allowed and their effect can be seen at the time of trial. [5]. In view of above, in considered opinion of this Court, no fault can be attributed to the trial Court while allowing prayer for amendment of the plaint. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

October 22, 2016                           (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik                                             JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned                 Yes / No

Whether reportable                        Yes / No




                                2 of 2
             ::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2016 23:30:09 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court