Mukand Lal and Another vs Khushal Singh and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The controversy here is with regard to a plot of land measuring 8 marlas in Khasra No. 714-min at Jalalabad in Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore. According to the Plaintiffs, they had purchased this plot from one Jagdish Singh and others by a registered sale-deed on November 30, 1970 and had been in possession over since and that the Defendants were trying to dispossess them from this plot. They, therefore, filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from interferring with their possession over this plot.

Khushal Singh, Defendant, contested this suit by taking up the plea that he had constructed a residential house on the plot in question and had been in possession thereof since the last 20/25 years. It was denied that the Plaintiffs had ever been in possession of this plot. Further, it was pleaded that Jagdish Singh and others, the persons from whom the Plaintiff claims that they had purchased this plot, had no concerned with it and nor had they executed any sale-deed in favour of the Plaintiffs.

The trial court found that the Plaintiffs had indeed purchased the plot from Jagdish Singh and others by a registered sale-deed, but the possession over it was not that of the Plaintiffs but of Defendant-Khushal Singh. It was at the same time ah>o found that Khushal Singh had not been in possession for more than 12 years. The suit of the Plaintiff was consequently dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court was later upheld in appeal by the lower appellate court.

In appeal here, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC had been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking permission to amend the plaint with a view to claim the relief of possession too. This was sought to be opposed by the counsel for the Defendant-Khushal Singh, on the ground that it had been filed at a very belated stage. Delay in filing the application for amendment of the plaint is clearly writ large, but it is well-settled that amendment of pleadings can be permitted at any stage and delay by itself, is not ground to deny amendment, if in the interests of justice, it is otherwise appropriate to be allowed.

Delay would, of course, be a relevant circumstance in considering the terms on which the amendment sought at a belated stage should be permitted. In the circumstances, as they emerge in the present case, this is clearly a fit case to permit the Plaintiffs to amend their plaint with a view to seek the relief of possession too. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court as also of the trial court are accordingly hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law after permitting the Plaintiffs to amend their plaint in the said manner.

The amendment prayed for is allowed subject to payment, in this Court, of Rs. 1,000/- as costs on or before July 11, 1988. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on July 20, 1988.

It is, however, clarified that if the costs for the amendment, prayed for, are not paid within the time specified, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court shall stand.

This appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.