Harnek Singh & Ors vs Daljit Singh

Alka Sarin, J

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the  Constitution  of  India  challenging  the  impugned  order  dated  15.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondent  herein  filed  a  suit  in  the  year  2018  for  permanent  injunction  for restraining  the  defendant-petitioners  herein  from  interfering  in  the  peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent and further for restraining the defendant-petitioners from dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent from the suit property. Written statement was filed. After the pleadings were complete, the issues were framed. Thereafter, at the time of rebuttal i.e. on 19.12.2024 the present application was filed for amendment of the written statement wherein the defendant-petitioners wanted to amend para 5 of the preliminary objection by adding the following paragraph :

“It is worth mentioning here that half share of the suit property is still in the possession of the real brother of the plaintiff namely Sukhdeep Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh son of Jagir Singh, as said Sukhdeep Singh got the entire property  from  his  father  by  way  of  agreement  dated  07-04-2014. That thereafter Sukhdeep Singh sold ½ share of the  suit  property  situated  within  the  Lal  Lakir  of  Village Burj Naklian to Gurdev Singh son of Harbachan Singh son of Bhan Singh R/o Village Burj Naklian vide agreement to sell dated 21-05-2015 for consideration of Rs. 1,00, 000/- coupled by the delivery of the possession. It is worth mentioning  here  that  said  Gurdev  Singh  further  sold  the suit property to Jaswant Singh son of Harnek Singh son of Anokh Singh R/o village Burj Naklian, Tehsil Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana vide agreement to sell dated 29-05-2015 for consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- coupled by the delivery of the possession. It is further worth mentioning here that the aforesaid Jaswant Singh sold the suit property to Gurpreet Singh son of Jaswant Singh son of Harnek Singh R/O Village Burj Naklian, Tehsil Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana vide agreement to sell dated 27-07-2015 for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- coupled by the delivery of possession. It is further  worth  mentioning  here  that  said  Gurpreet  Singh further sold the suit property to defendant No.2 Harjit Kaur vide agreement to sell dated 12-09-2018 for a consideration of Rs. 2, 60,000/- coupled by the delivery of possession. Copies of the all agreements are appended herewith and presently it is the defendant No.2 who is the owner  in  possession  of  the  suit  property.  The  plaintiff  is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property at all and the plaintiff having no right, title or any other concern with the suit property. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in active collusion with his father Mukhtiar Singh which is evident from the fact that on 12-09-2018  the  defendant  No.2  purchased  the  suit  property from Gurpreet Singh as aforesaid and on 13-09-2018 very mnext day the plaintiff allegedly prepared the agreement to sell dated 13-09-2018 allegedly executed by Mukhtiar Singh in favour of the plaintiff which is forged and fictitious document. without consideration without delivery of the possession as Mukhtiar Singh has already given the suit property to his son Sukhdeep Singh vide agreement dated 07-04-2014 as aforesaid and the suit property has been alienated four times further coupled by the  delivery  of  the  possession  and  the  suit  property  is  a open space used for storage the cow dungs and animals etc.”

Reply  was  filed  to  the  said  amendment  application  and  vide  the  impugned order dated 15.01.2025, the said amendment application has been dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend that the said amendment is only clarificatory in nature and would not change the defense as taken by the defendant-petitioners. It is further the contention that evidence has already been led and therefore no evidence is required to be led in this regard.

Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent would contend that the application has been moved at the fag end of the trial i.e. at the  stage  of  rebuttal  and  though  the  defendant-petitioners  may  have  led  the evidence  qua the averments  made now in the amended  paragraph, however, the plaintiff-respondent cannot be taken by surprise inasmuch as without there being any pleadings, the plaintiff-respondent could not have led any evidence in this regard and since the onus of issue No.1 is on the plaintiff-respondent, he cannot now lead evidence in rebuttal, hence, it would amount to a de novo trial.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In the present case the application for amendment of the written statement, which has been filed at the fag end of the trial i.e. at the stage of rebuttal, merely states that the defendant-petitioners want to amend para 5 of the preliminary objection. There is not a word in the application as to why the said plea could not be raised earlier. Except for stating that it would not change the  nature  of  the  defense,  no  other  explanation  is  forthcoming  for  not  filing the said application earlier. The suit has been pending since 2018 and the

present  application  has  been  filed  in  2024.  Further  still,  though  it  has  been stated by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners that he would not want to lead any evidence, however, on a query put by the Court as to whether the evidence led qua the averments made in the proposed amended paragraph would  fall  under  issue  No.1,  learned  counsel  has  candidly  admitted  that  the evidence led was on issue No.1. Since the onus of issue No.1 was on the plaintiff-respondent, he possibly cannot now lead evidence in rebuttal on the said issue and permitting the amendment now would mean that the plaintiff- respondent would have to be given an opportunity to lead their evidence afresh

on issue No.1 resulting in a de novo trial.

In  view  of the  above,  no fault  can  be  found with  the  impugned order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P-8). I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.