Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh ...Petiitioner vs Surinder Kaur @ Kulvir Kaur And Ors on 22 January, 2009
Civil Revision No. 1174 of 2008 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1174 of 2008
Date of decision: 22.01.2009
Gurpreet Singh ...Petiitioner
Versus
Surinder Kaur @ Kulvir Kaur and ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Ms. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. M.L.Saini,Advocate for the respondents.
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
The defendants have filed the present petition to challenge the validity of the impugned order dated 4.2.2008 vide which the learned Trial Court allowed a plea filed by the respondents-defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for the amendment of the plaint and to thereby add the following words in para 5 and para 14 respectively:-
PARA NO.5 "The suit property in the hands of defendant no.3 was ancestral and coparcenary property of the parties. As per the amended provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff being the daughter of defendant no.3 is also a co- parcener and equal rights and interest in the suit property alongwith the defendants. The defendant no.3 was not competent to suffer the alleged judgment and decree in favour Civil Revision No. 1174 of 2008 -2- **** of defendants no.l and 2."
PARA NO.14 "The plaintiff come to know regarding the transfer of ownership of the suit property in the revenue record in the name of defendants no.1 and 2 on the basis of alleged judgment and decree and then immediately after obtaining the copies of alleged judgment and decree filed this suit. Hence, this suit is being filed within limitation."
The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for a declaration that judgment and decree dated 4.5.1995 was illegal and void inasmuchas it had been suffered by defendant no.3 therein in favour of defendants no. l and 2 inspite of the fact that the land under reference was ancestral in his hand qua the plaintiff-respondent and was coparcenary property of the parties. The plaintiff-respondent claimed to be a coparcener being daughter of defendant-respondent no.1.
The plea was opposed by defendants-petitioners by averring that the plaintiff-respondent was thereby trying to wriggle out of the admission made by her in para No.14 of the plaint conceding that the cause of action to file the suit arose to her on the grant of judgment and decree dated 4.5.1995. The plea, raised in the context, is that she is trying to introduce a further cause of action by claiming that she came to know the title of the property from the revenue record. The plea raised thereby is that cause of action aforementioned is time barred.
The learned Trial Court held that the Courts have to adopt a liberal attitude in granting a plea for amendment of the pleadings particularly when serious injustice or irreparable loss would not be thereby caused to the other side. It was observed that the application is being Civil Revision No. 1174 of 2008 -3- **** allowed subject to payment of Rs.1500/- as costs and the provisions of Limitation Act.
It would be evident from a perusal of the impugned order that the question of limitation had been kept open by the learned Trial Court. The defendants-petitioners need, thus, have no fear on that account if the proposed cause of action is found to be time barred. The Court will, obviously, record a finding to that effect.
The case is not at a mature stage. The law must facilitate adjudication of a judicial controversy on the pleadings of the parties. The purpose of procedural law is not to punish a party but to aid the allowance of the reception of proper pleadings which would enable the Court to do substantial justice between the parties.
The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.
January 22, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge