Amardeep Singh and Others vs Harbhajan Singh and Others

Inderjit Singh, J.—Amardeep Singh etc.-petitioners/plain-tiffs have filed this civil revision petition against Harbhajan Singh etc.-respondents/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.2.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in Civil Suit No. 377 dated 24.10.2005 titled as "Darshan Kaur and another v. Harbhajan Singh and another", vide which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of plaint has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued in this case. Respondent No. 2 appeared through counsel and contested this petition and none appeared for respondent No. 1.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that Darshan Kaur and Amardeep Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners of properties as described in the head note of the plaint and suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner and for joint possession of the land. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. In the application, it has been stated that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are joint owners of the property fully described in the head note of the plaint and for grant of permanent injunction and for joint possession and the defendants have also filed a suit for possession of one house against the plaintiffs situated in Village Hussainpura. Both the suits were consolidated with each other and the evidence is being recorded in case titled as "Darshan Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh and others. The plaintiffs in the suit titled as "Harbhajan Singh v. Darshan Kaur had pleaded that the house in dispute in the said suit had been purchased by Swaran Singh son of Teja Singh and construction was raised with the income and sale of the ancestral property. However, due to inadvertence and lack of proper guidance, the plaintiff could not plead the factum that the properties in dispute, was purchased from the income and sale of the ancestral properties.

The defendants contested this application and stated that proposed amendment cannot be allowed as it will cause prejudice to them. They also pleaded that Swaran Singh father-in-law of plaintiff No. 1 and grand-father of plaintiff No. 2 and father of defendants was owner in possession of the land and the proposed amendment is inconsistent to the plea taken by the plaintiffs in that suit and no sufficient cause is explained as to why it has been filed at the belated stage. The applicants have not stated in the plaint that the suit properties became the ancestral properties of the parties to the suit.

A perusal of the record shows that the case was fixed for defendants'' evidence which means the trial has already commenced in this case. Secondly, in the plaint earlier there is no mention regarding the house in dispute as ancestral coparcenary property. Now the plaintiffs want to add this relief. In no way, it can be held that this plea was not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs nor it could be taken with due diligence. If such type of amendment is allowed, then there will be no end for the parties to seek amendment by the change of counsel.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court in J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others, 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 903 and Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Usman Habib Dhuka and others, 2013 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 965 and of this Court in Sunil and others v. Jai Prakash and another, (2013-1) 169 PLR 465, and Jaspal Kaur and another v. Mohinder Singh and others, (2013-4) 172 PLR 175. I have gone through the law laid down in these judgments. The law laid down in these judgments fully applies to the facts of the present case.

On the other side, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu and others, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 481. I have gone through this judgment. This judgment having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case because the proposed amendment will introduce a different relief and further the trial has already commenced, the plaintiffs have closed their evidence and the case is fixed for defendants'' evidence.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana has correctly held that it will give rise to never ending situation. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.2.2013 dismissing the application of the plaintiffs for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is correct and as per law which does not require any interference from this Court and the same is upheld. Therefore, finding no merit in the present civil revision petition, the same is dismissed.