Ripudaman Singh alias Parduman Singh vs Suresh Parshad

Bakhshish Kaur, J.—Petitioner grievance is against the impugned order as his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed.

The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants to raise any construction or to encroach upon the land comprised in the khasra numbers, as fully detailed and described in the title of the suit.

The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner is the owner of the property comprising of Khasra No. 70/2/5/1 and the defendant-respondents are the owners of the property bearing khasra No. 70/2/4. It is admitted fact that during the pendency of the suit on the undertaking given by the defendant-respondents, they were allowed to raise construction only on the portion comprised in khasra No. 70/2/4. It is also admitted fact that symbolic possession of the land measuring 3 Marlas was delivered to the plaintiff petitioner. The kanungo in his report dated 9.1.1997 has reported that there was an encroachment. However, the symbolical possession of the land was delivered to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the said encroachment was not made by the defendants because they had raised the construction only on the portion which was in their possession and which is owned by them.

The suit was filed on August 8, 1994. The symbolical possession of the land, as above, as delivered to the petitioner on 9.1.1997. The development, if any, had taken place during the pendency of the suit, as accord- ing to the plaintiff, the defendants had encroached upon the land belonging to him comprising in khasra No. 70/2/5/1. Though, this fact is denied by the respondents, yet it is well settled that power to allow amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings. For an event which allegedly took place during the pendency of the lis the party cannot be blamed for not filing the application earlier.

In A.K. Gupta and Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, ; Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others, and Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Moji Ram, , followed in Dalip Kaur and another v. Najar Singh and others 1995(2) R L R 168, it was held that the object of the rule was to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes by allowing the amendment of the pleadings in the appropriate cases.

In another latest authority of the Apex Court, reported in B.K.K Pillai v. P. Filial 2000(1) RCR 511 (SC), it is held that Courts should, however, not adopt hypertechnical approach while dealing with the prayer of amendment. Power to allow amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage.

Thus, in order to determine the real controversy in the matter and also to avoid multiplicity of the suit, the proposed amendment in necessary.

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated at the Bar that the plaintiff-petitioner has already led evidence and no further evidence will be led in support of the amended pleas.

In view of the aforesaid, this revision petition is accepted. The proposed amendment is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear be-fore the trial Court on 29.1.2001.

Petition allowed.