Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. In Smt. Gurdip Kaur v. Kehar Singh and Ors. (supra) a learned Single Judge held that no amendment is to be allowed if its effect is to take away a valuable right that has accrued to the opposite party. The facts of that case were that vide sale deed dated 25.5.1964, Shingara Singh sold 50 kanals and 16 marlas of land situated in village Pakhana alongwith all rights appurtenant thereto and a kutcha house to Smt. Gurdip Kaur for a sum of Rs. 7620/-. His son-Kehar Singh filed a suit for pre-emption on 31.5.1965. In the plaint, no reference was made to Kutcha house which was included in the sale deed. In her written statement, Smt. Gurdip Kaur pleaded that the suit was liable to be dismissed because no prayer had been made in respect of Kutcha house and partial preemption cannot be granted. In the course of the trial, the plaintiff applied for amendment for inclusion of prayer in respect of kutcha house. The trial judge dismissed the application for amendment primarily on the ground that it was barred by time. The plaintiff did not challenge that order by way of revision. The suit was ultimately dismissed on the ground that relief of partial pre-emption cannot be granted. During the pendency of the appeal filed by him, the plaintiff again applied for amendment. The Additional District Judge allowed the application and remanded the case to the trial Court. The learned Single Judge accepted the appeal filed by the vendee and held that the amendment cannot be allowed because it had become time barred.