Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Ajit Rai Marwaha vs Karnail Singh And Others on 13 February, 2013
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6417 of 2011
Date of Decision : February 13, 2013
Dr. Ajit Rai Marwaha
.....Petitioner
Versus
Karnail Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate
T.P.S. Mann, J.
The petitioner, alongwith his wife Dr. Prabha Marwaha, filed a suit for recovery of possession of plot of land and one room with one bath-room constructed over the plot of land measuring 58 feet on Eastern side, 75 feet on the Western side, 50 feet on the Northern side and 90 feet on the Southern side and also strip of land measuring 50 feet on the North-South side and 13 feet 3 inches on the Eastern-Western side by demolishing three storeyed building which was part of the building bearing No. 67, Kennedy Avenue, Amritsar. In the suit, Karnail Singh, Rachhpal Singh and Smt. Yash Rani Mahajan were arrayed as defendants. From the written statement filed by Yash Rani Mahajan, the petitioner learnt that a part of the suit property Civil Revision No. 6417 of 2011 -2- had been sold by defendant Karnail Singh in favour of Poonam Mahajan vide sale deed dated 14.3.1997. Considering that Poonam Mahajan was a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the matter and to settle all the questions involved in the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. It was also averred that though the suit property had been completely described in para 2 of the plaint and in the site-plan attached thereto yet the same had not been described in the head-note and the prayer clause due to typographical mistake and in order to avoid further complications, the petitioner wanted to describe the suit property completely in the head-note and prayer clause of the plaint.
The aforementioned application filed by the petitioner was resisted by defendant Yash Rani Mahajan on the ground that the written statement stood filed since long and the plaintiffs had led their evidence and when the matter had reached the stage of recording of the evidence of the defendants, the plaintiffs filed the application in question. Another defendant, namely, Kanchan Sharma also objected to the application by asserting that written statement had been filed by Yash Rani Mahajan long time back and even the sale deed in question pertained to the year 1997. Civil Revision No. 6417 of 2011 -3- These facts were very much within the knowledge of the petitioner and there was no reason or explanation as to why Poonam Mahajan could not be impleaded at an earlier stage.
Vide impugned order dated 9.8.2011, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that defendant Yash Rani Mahajan had filed her written statement on 31.3.2008 whereas the application in question was filed by the plaintiffs two years thereafter, i.e. on 15.3.2010. During the interregnum, issues were framed and the plaintiffs had completed their evidence in affirmative and the defendants had examined some of their witnesses and when the case was heading for conclusion of the evidence of the defendants that the plaintiffs filed the present application for impleading Poonam Mahajan as a new defendant. It was further held that the suit pertained to the year 1999 whereas the sale deed was executed on 14.3.1997. After filing of the suit, the plaintiffs filed repeated applications under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading more defendants. Initially, Karnail Singh and Rachhpal Singh were impleaded as defendants. On 19.4.2001, application filed by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. was allowed and Yash Rani Mahajan was impleaded as defendant No.3. Even thereafter, another application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiffs which was allowed on 13.8.2001 and Kuldip Singh and Kanchan Civil Revision No. 6417 of 2011 -4- Sharma were added as defendants No. 4 and 5, respectively. The plaintiffs were making repeated applications for impleading new defendants leading to unnecessary and unreasonable delay in the conclusion of the trial. Even otherwise by impleading Poonam Mahajan as defendant in the suit, there would be de novo trial. As regards the amendment of the head-note and the prayer clause of the plaint, it was observed that no reason, whatsoever, had been assigned by the plaintiffs for not giving the appropriate and reasonable description of the suit property at an earlier stage of the case. Therefore, there was no reasonable ground to allow the application in question. The same was, accordingly, dismissed.
On 19.10.2011, the present revision came up for preliminary hearing when after hearing counsel for the petitioner, notice was issued to the respondents and further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. Subsequently, the service of respondents No. 3 and 5 was completed through their counsel in the trial Court. As regards respondent No.1, it was made out from the memo. of parties that he was a proclaimed offender. Similarly, respondents No. 2 and 4 were being proceeded against ex parte before the trial Court. Despite service, respondents No. 3 and 5 did not care to put in appearance.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court Civil Revision No. 6417 of 2011 -5- finds that in her written statement, defendant Yash Rani Mahajan had stated that defendant Karnail Singh had sold part of the suit property measuring 200 sq. yards to Poonam Mahajan. The written statement of Yash Rani Mahajan has been placed on record of the present revision by the petitioner by filing the miscellaneous application, which was allowed on 18.12.2012. Certified copy of the same reveals that though it was prepared and verified by Yash Rani Mahajan on 27.3.2002 yet it came to be filed only on 31.3.2008. Therefore, merely because the suit pertained to the year 1999 is no ground to hold that the application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. in question has been filed by the plaintiffs in order to delay the proceedings. Even otherwise, it has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that he is an aged person, being more than 75 years of age and not residing in India. As Poonam Mahajan had purchased a part of the suit property from defendant Karnail Singh, she is a necessary party and requires to be impleaded as a defendant. Her impleadment as such would not prejudice the case of other defendants. On the other hand, it will enable the Court to pass a comprehensive order so as to effectively and completely adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit. Moreover, as stated by counsel for the petitioner, the defendants have not started leading their evidence and, therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and with a view to enable the Court to Civil Revision No. 6417 of 2011 -6- effectively and completely adjudicate upon the matter in controversy, Poonam Mahajan is required to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit.
When the property stands fully described in the plaint, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the plaintiffs to amend the head-note and the prayer clause of the plaint so as to describe the property therein also. That would obviate any chance of ambiguity in their decree to be passed at the final stage.
In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. The revision is, accordingly, accepted, impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. and under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is allowed, subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the contesting defendants.
( T.P.S. MANN )
February 13, 2013 JUDGE
satish