Jagdish Singh vs Kulwaran Singh

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present revision is directed against the order passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jalandhar whereby he has turned down application moved by plaintiff for amendment of plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. He submits that approach of the trial court is wholly erroneous. In the facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiff was entitled to amendment as prayed for. Thus, impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, vehemently opposed the plea. He submits that plaintiff did not file replication despite several opportunities. He thereafter availed seven opportunities to lead evidence but failed to do so. After a lapse of 11/2 years, he filed application for amendment of plaint to challenge the sale deed dated 8.9.2009. He further contends that plaintiff has preferred a separate suit to challenge the sale deeds in question.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that suit was filed by the plaintiff-Jagdish Singh for possession of the property in question by way of redemption. He also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from changing the nature of suit property in any manner. In the written statement, defendant took preliminary objections that suit property had already been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of registered sale deed dated 8.9.2009 executed through his attorney vide document No. 4539. Defendant filed written statement on 19.11.2009. Issues were framed thereafter. Case was fixed for plaintiff''s evidence on 28.4.2010. Thereafter, plaintiff availed various opportunities for leading evidence but failed to do so. On the other hand, he moved instant application for amendment of plaint to challenge the sale deed dated 8.9.2009. Plea has been rejected by the court below observing that plaintiff remained silent for a considerable period. He was unable to show that he could not have sought amendment earlier despite due diligence. This apart proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC would be attracted. I find no legal infirmity with the order. There is no scope for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.