Himmat Singh vs Dalel Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Himmat Singh-plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 22.07.2013 Annexure P-3 passed by the trial Court thereby dismissing application Annexure P-2 filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint. I have heard the petitioner in person and perused the case file.

I need not go into merits of the case. Earlier application filed by the plaintiff seeking same amendment of plaint was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 31.07.2010 and civil revision no. 6011 of 2010 filed against the said order in this Court was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.09.2010 Annexure P-4. In view thereof, the instant second application, seeking same amendment of plaint, has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.

The petitioner contended that his counsel in the trial Court as well as in aforesaid civil revision in this Court colluded with the opposite party, necessitating the filing of the second application Annexure P-2 for amendment of plaint.

The contention cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the allegation made by the petitioner. Admittedly, he has not even made any complaint of professional misconduct against either of the two Advocates and has also not initiated any other action against them.

In view of the aforesaid, judgments in the cases of South Konkan Distilleries and Another Vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik and Others, Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others Vs. K.K. Modi and Others, cited by the petitioner relating to scope of amendment of pleading, do not help the petitioner because dismissal of his first application for amendment of plaint has attained finality and therefore, the instant second application, seeking same amendment of plaint, has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.