Brij Lal vs Gaushala and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 29-4-1997 vide which the learned trial Court has allowed the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs. The facts are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 46 Kanals 7 Marias consisting of Khewat No. 32 Khatauni No. 71 situated in village Kamla, District Mohindergarh. It was further averred that plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 were the tenants over the land at a monthly rent of Rs. 425/- and they were jointly in possession of the land in question. It was further prayed that the defendants in the suit have no concern over the land and they be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff or taking forcible possession thereof.

The suit was contested by the defendants. They claimed title to the property. Defendant No. 1 on the basis of the Will in his favour got mutation recorded in the case of Brij Lal v. Ghisa Ram and stated that the plaintiffs had no interest in the land in question.

During the course of arguments it was conceded that the Assistant Collector had passed an order on 26-5-1992 regarding the name of the defendants in the revenue records. This order was challenged by the plaintiffs in the suit before the higher authorities on the revenue side and their appeal was also dismissed on 29-5-1992 by the Collector. In execution of these orders and during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs in the suit were dispossessed from the land in question. On or about 23-11-1992 an application under Order 6 Rule 17, of the CPC was filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint seeking to bring on record these subsequent events and challenging the order dated 26-5-1992 passed by the revenue authorities. It is this application of the plaintiffs that has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as costs.

Being aggrieved from the said order the petitioner (defendant) in the suit filed this revision petition. The learned trial Court while allowing the amendment discussed the case of the parties in some detail. The reasons given by the learned trial Court nowhere suffer from any infirmity and cannot be said to be based on an incorrect or illegal approach. The amendment application itself which was pending for a period of four years has been allowed and the Court recorded its concern even in that regard. The suit is pending since 1989 while the order on the basis of which the defendants took possession of the land in question was admittedly passed on 25-5-1992. The Will dated 25-3-1964 was a registered will and this claim was upheld by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Mohindergarh in his judgment date 1-8-1979.

The Court at this stage is not concerned with the merits or demerits of the case resulting from allowing an amendment unless the amendment is shown to be barred under some law or is an amendment which is not permissible on the basis of the settled canons of Civil Jurisprudence. The amendment must be considered without reference to the ultimate fate of the result of the suit. In the present case, the plaintiffs who have already filed a suit for declaration have prayed for amendment to the effect that the order dated 26-5-1992 is liable to be set aside. This prayer is based on the subsequent events that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs lost possession and they wish to challenge the correctness of the said order, the same being illegal, hull and void and not binding upon them.

The effect of allowing the amendment certainly is that neither the nature of the case changes nor the subject-matter. The plaintiffs not building up a case which they had not pleaded at the first instance except the subsequent events which have occurred during the pendency of the suit. The controversy between the parties would still continue to be the same falling within the limited compass of the larger controversies already in issue before the trial Court. The laws of procedure must be, construed liberally so as to achieve and not to frustrate, the ends of justice. The multiplicity of litigation between the parties must be prevented. This learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has nowhere showed that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs is barred or is hit by any of the legal provisions or settled principles governing the subject. The reliance by the learned Courts below that the challenge to the order dated 25-9-1992 is a subsequent event and does not infringe any protection otherwise available to the defendants, appears to be well balanced.

The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the plaintiffs have already lost possession, no cause of action survives and even the present amendment does not cure the said defect and consequently allowing of the application for amendment has prejudicially affected the interests of the defendants is not well founded. The question with regard to maintainability even upon allowing the amendment is bound to be considered by the trial Court in due course.

In view of the above discussion, I am unable to see any jurisdictional or other error apparent on the face of the record, which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.