Kishan Singh vs Krishan Lal Bhatia

Swatanter Kumar, J.—Krishan Lal filed three different suits, one for permanent injunction against Kishan Singh and Ors. two suits for declaration against Secretary, Government of Punjab, Industry Department, Chandigarh and Gurudwara Amar Shaheed respectively. All these three suits were based on common facts: It was stated by Krishan Lai that he be declared owner in possession of the property in dispute including the shops and vacant area situated in Industrial Area-B, G.T. Road, Ludhiana and the defendants be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession of the property and the open area as the defendants have no right, title and interest in the said property.

During the pendency of these suits, three applications were filed Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC by Krishan Lal stating that on 27.1.1996, during the pendency of the suit, Knshan bingh had in the open space at the back of the shop/property and with malafide intention affixed Nishan Sahib. The purpose of the defendants is to obstruct the execution of the decree, if ultimately passed in favour of the plaintiff and also to cause inconvenience to him. Thus, he prayed for amendment of the relief clause directing for mandatory injunction to remove Nishan Sahib from the property in dispute and to make other consequential amendment in the plaint.

These three applications again based on the common facts, were allowed by the learned trial court subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. Thus, three orders allowing the applications for amendment filed by the plaintiff in the suits have given rise to three revisions being preferred by Krishan Singh himself and on behalf of Gurudwara Amar Shaheed Darshan Singh Pheruman being Civil Revision No. 5474, 5473 and 5404 of 1998 respectively.

In view of the above facts, all these revisions are being disposed of by a common order.

It is a settled principle of law that subsequent events to the institution of the suit, so far they are in consonance with the original cause of action, should be permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment. The law of amendment in any case is liberal and the facts, which are necessary to do complete justice between the parties should be permitted to be brought on record. This would help in complete determination of issues as well as would avoid unnecessary multiplication of the litigation.

In the present case, subsequent to the institution of the suit by Shri Krishan Lal, the events sought to be introduced by way of amendment relate to the happening dated 27.1.1996. According to the applicant, the defendants have unauthorized occupied the property and affixed Nishan Sahib, over which the plaintiff has already claimed his ownership and possession in the suits. Reference has been made to the complaints made to Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Ludhiana which are dated 30.1.1996 immediately after the happening and as such the amendment cannot be said to be malafide or filed with an intention to delay the proceedings before the trial court. Even, otherwise, one does not see any reason whatsoever as to why plaintiff will delay his own suit. The orders passed by the learned trial court are in consonance with the well settled principle of law and does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, all the above three revisions are dismissed in limine, though there shall be no order as to costs.