CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sohan Singh vs Surjit Singh Grewal

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 20 May 2016 · Citation: (2016) 3 LawHerald 1939 : (2016) 4 RCRCivil 77 : (2016) 2 RCRRent 278

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amit Rawal, J.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17 · East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 — Section 13
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CR No. 4942 of 2015 (O & M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 353 words

Amit Rawal, J.(Oral) - The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 1.9.2014 whereby application seeking amendment of the plaint in a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint order against the respondent-defendant his agents, associates, servants, employees etc. not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the suit property has been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that due to typographical error and inadvertence the date of tenancy has been mentioned as 1992 instead of 2002. Even the issues have not been framed. When the application was filed the suit was at the initial stage, yet the trial court declined the application.

3.

He further submits that as per the interim order the evidence in support of the claim in the suit has been filed in terms of proposed amendment, thus urges this Court that the amendment is most innocuous and does not alter and change nature of the suit much less amounts to withdrawal of admission as the case set up by the defendant before the trial court and this Court is that the plaintiff has not been inducted as a tenant but only care taker, therefore seeking amendment regarding the tenancy is material though in cross examination this fact of the plaintiff has not been denied.

4.

Mr. Arjunveer Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the amendment as sought cannot be permitted and in case, the amendment is allowed, it will alter the nature of the suit, much less tantamounts to de novo trial.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that the amendment sought is most innocuous in the simpliciter suit for injunction against the forcible dispossession and interference. The plaintiff has already been examined.

6.

In view of the aforementioned facts, I am of the view that allowing of the application would not tantamount to de novo trial and putting the clock back.

7.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The application seeking amendment of the plaint is allowed. Resultantly, the revision petition stands allowed.