Rajinder Singh vs Gamdoor Singh and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is not necessary to implead LRs of respondent no. 5 and prays that moving of application for impleading LRs of respondent no. 5 may be dispensed with. Ordered accordingly. Instant revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.02.2011 (Annexure P-5) whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioner for amendment of plaint has been dismissed.

Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for joint possession and permanent injunction against respondents. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no. 1-Dial Singh passed away and the petitioner, who happens to be the son of said Dial Singh was impleaded as his legal representative. In addition to the petitioner, all other legal heirs of Dial Singh are already on record. It is further averred that the petitioner moved an application for amendment in plaint for the fair adjudication of the case which are as under:

(a) That the plaintiff wants to incorporate the word "was" in place of "is" after defendant no. 1 in the first line of para no. 5 of the plaint and also wants to add a new line in the end of para no. 5 as under "Dial Singh has died on 11.12.2010 in village Chathe Sekhwan. Plaintiff and defendants no. 2 to 4 and defendants no. 1 to 13 are his legal heirs.

(b) That the plaintiff wants to incorporate the word "was in place of "is" after defendant no. 1 in the last line of para no. 6.

(c) That the plaintiff also wants to add the word "now deceased" after defendant no. 1 in the third line of para no. 7. Similarly, the plaintiff also wants to add the words "during his life-time" after defendant no. 1 in the first line of para No. 12 and plaintiff also wants to add the words "during his lifetime" after defendant no. 1 Dial Singh in the first line of para no. 13.

(d) That the plaintiff also wants to add the words "during his life time" after the words requested in the first line of para no. 14 and similarly, the word "had" in place of "has" of para no. 14.

(e) That the plaintiff also want to add the words "defendant no. 1 had died, leaving plaintiff and defendants no. 2 to 4 and 11 to 13 as his legal heirs" and after the word "plaint" in the second line of para no. 15, the plaintiff wants to delete the words, "this suit" after the word "Hence" in the last line of para no. 15 and wants to add new line as, "the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share out of total land and house described in para nos. a. and b of the heading of the plaint after the death of Dial Singh, defendant no. 1 being the above said property is joint, ancestral and coparcenary in which plaintiff''s share is 1/5th by birth.

The said application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 08.02.2011 (Annexure P-5). Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the proposed amendment, neither any evidence is required to be led, nor any new issue is required to be framed. The learned counsel further contends that only for the purpose to avoid hyper-technical objections, the proposed amendment has been sought.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order.

I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.

Having considered the proposed amendments re-produced above, this Court is of the definite view that the amendments as sought with regard to impleading LRs of Dial Singh, who are already on record, are necessary for the purpose of some clarifications and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the opposite party. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 (Annexure P-5) dismissing the application of the petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is set aside and the application of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint is allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority. Amended plaint be filed within three weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order and respondents will be at liberty to file written statement, if any, to the amended plaint within two weeks thereafter. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 19.08.2013. Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.