Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh vs Gurdial Singh And Others on 10 July, 2011
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.4522 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4522 of 2011
Date of Decision:-27.7.2011
Amandeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Gurdial Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.B.S.Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Concisely, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that the civil suit filed by Gurdial Singh and Sohan Singh-respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs (for brevity "the plaintiffs") for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 29.5.1999, executed by Surinder Pal Singh (since deceased), father of petitioner- defendant Amandeep Singh (for short "the original defendant") was decreed in their (plaintiffs) favour by the trial Court, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 19.4.2010. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the petitioner filed the appeal, which is pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Patiala (appellate Court).
2. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner moved an application (Annexure P1) for amendment of the written statement, so as to add entirely new facts that before death, his father Surinder Pal Singh scribed a writing mentioning therein that plaintiff Gurdial Singh, who was running a commission agent shop, obtained his signatures on two blank pronotes, through his Accountant/Munim, in the garb of preparing pucca papers. The petitioner also sought to include new plea Civil Revision No.4522 of 2011 -2- in the written statement that no amount of ` 1,50,000/- was paid by plaintiff Gurdial Singh to Surinder Pal Singh, original defendant on 16.5.2000. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure P1) for amendment of the written statement at the belated stage, in the manner indicated hereinbefore.
3. The plaintiffs contested the prayer of the defendant and filed the reply, raising preliminary objection of maintainability of the application at this belated stage. It was clarified that previously an application for amendment of the written statement on the same grounds was filed, which was dismissed by the trial Court, by means of order dated 27.8.2008, which has attained the finality. It was explained that the petitioner-defendant did not receive the summons in the appeal. He was proceeded against exparte. On 31.1.2002, he filed an application for setting aside the exparte order, which was allowed. Thus, he has now again filed the instant application (Annexure P1) for amendment of the written statement, in order to delay the disposal of the appeal. The remaining pleadings of the application were stoutly denied by the plaintiffs and they prayed for its dismissal.
4. The first appellate Court dismissed the application for amendment of written statement filed by the defendant, by way of impugned order dated 7.6.2011. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate Court, the petitioner filed the instant revision petition.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition.
6. As is evident from the record that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance was decreed by the trial Court. Surinder Pal Singh, father of the petitioner, who executed the agreement to sell dated 29.5.1999, did not take any such plea in the original written statement in the trial Court. It is not a matter of dispute that after the death of Surinder Pal Singh, the petitioner moved similar Civil Revision No.4522 of 2011 -3- application for amendment, which was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 27.8.2008. Now again, during the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed another application (Annexure P1) for amendment to include entirely new facts mentioned in the written statement herein.
7. To me, such amendment changing the basic structure of the stand already taken in the original written statement filed by the defendant, cannot legally be permitted at this belated stage of appeal, particularly when same prayer has already been dismissed by the trial Court. To my mind, the appellate Court has rightly rejected the 2nd application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner, by virtue of impugned order dated 7.6.2011, the operative part of which is (para 9) as under:-
"It is relevant to mention that the plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 29.5.99 executed by Surinder pal Singh. Now the defendant/applicant wants to amend the written statement to plead signatures of Surinder Pal Singh were obtained on blank Pucca forms on 16.5.2000. The case is not based on any document of the year 2000. Therefore, the proposed amendment is not relevant for the decision of real controversy between the parties. In this alleged writing it is no where mentioned that the signatures of Surinder Pal Singh have been obtained on blank stamp papers (Pucca papers) It is mentioned that some other Pucca papers were also got executed. Therefore, the application is considered without merit and stands dismissed."
8. Meaning thereby, the appellate Court has also recorded the valid reasons in dismissing the application (Annexure P1) filed by the petitioner- defendant by way of the impugned order. Such impugned order containing valid reasons cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so as to take a contrary view by this Court, than that of the well reasoned decision already arrived at by the appellate Court. Civil Revision No.4522 of 2011 -4-
9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of the appeal, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that nothing observed here-in-above would, in any manner, reflect on the merits of the appeal, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) 27.7.2011 Judge AS