Jaspal Singh vs Amarjit Kaur and others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C. M. No. 15577-C-II of 2012 :

Allowed as prayed for.

C. M. No. 15578-C-II of 2012 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-3 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Case :

Plaintiff Jaspal Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 27.03.2012 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-2) filed by the plaintiff petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC (in short - CPC) seeking to implead additional defendants to the suit and also seeking to amend the plaint. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit against respondents-defendants vide plaint (Annexure P-1) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay Rs. 25,000/- by way of damages to the plaintiff for causing his defamation on 27.06.2005 in Village Panchayat.

In application (Annexure P-2), the plaintiff alleged that Teja Singh etc. (mentioned in the application and sought to be impleaded as defendants no. 4 to 10) have forged and fabricated a resolution against the plaintiff and the said resolution has been produced in evidence by defendants no. 1 to 3, but later on, two members of Panchayat affirmed affidavits depicting that the resolution has been forged. Complaint under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr.P.C.) has also been filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff sought impleadment of Teja Singh etc. as defendants no. 4 to 10 along with amendment of plaint.

Defendants resisted the application by filing reply (Annexure P-3). Averments made in the application were controverted. It was pleaded that resolution in question is not forged or fabricated document. It was also pleaded that the application has been moved at the stage of final arguments.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-4), dismissed the plaintiffs application (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff-petitioner simply wants to implead Teja Singh etc. as additional defendants along with amendment of plaint because they had forged and fabricated a resolution, which had been produced in evidence by the defendants, and therefore, the application (Annexure P-2), moved by the plaintiff, should be allowed.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same is completely meritless.

The plaintiff, in his application (Annexure P-2), has not even specified the proposed amendment of plaint, which was essential for seeking amendment of the plaint. In addition to it, the only allegation made in the application against Teja Singh etc. is that they have forged and fabricated the resolution. However, on this basis, Teja Singh etc. cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit for damages based on alleged defamation. It is not even mentioned in the application (Annexure P-2) by the plaintiff that Teja Singh etc. also defamed him. In the absence of any such averment, the question of impleading Teja Singh etc. as party to the suit and permitting amendment of plaint would not arise. They cannot be said to be proper or necessary party to the suit. It may also be added that the alleged defamation took place on 27.06.2005, whereas application (Annexure P-2) is dated 28.11.2008, and therefore, the suit against Teja Singh etc., even if assumed to have been instituted on the date of application (Annexure P-2), would be barred by limitation. It is also not mentioned in the application as to when the resolution in question was produced in evidence by the defendants. The application also appears to have been filed belatedly at the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments. As regards alleged forgery and fabrication of the resolution, plaintiff has already moved application u/s 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. and the said aspect can be taken care of while adjudicating the said application. On the basis of averment regarding forgery and fabrication of the resolution, Teja Singh etc. cannot be ordered to be impleaded as party to the suit nor amendment of plaint can be permitted. For the reasons recorded herein before, it is crystal clear that there is no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine.