Surinderjit Singh vs Jagjit Kaur

Iqbal Singh, J.—This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision No. 43 of 1997 (Surinderjit Singh v. Jagjit Kaur) and Civil Revision No. 44 of 1997 (Surinderjit Singh v. Jagjit Kaur) as these arise out of the same civil suit (No. 852, dated 7th November, 1990) pending in appeal before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar. Civil Revision No.43 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant Surinderjit Singh against the order dated 2nd December, 1996, passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, for leading additional evidence was allowed. Civil Revision No.44 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant Surinderjit Singh against the order dated 2nd December, 1996, passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby his application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

Necessary facts to decide these revision petitions are as under:-

A suit was filed by plaintiff/respondent Jagjit Kaur against defendant/petitioner Surinderjit Singh for possession of the house in dispute on the ground that the same was previously owned and possessed by Lachhman Singh son of Ram Singh resident of village Nangal, who sold the same to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 28th February, 1963 for a consideration of Rs. 800/-. After the purchase of the property, the plaintiff raised construction in the same. Defendant Surinderjit Singh, who is the son of the plaintiff, forcibly took possession of the suit property from the plaintiff and turned her out about three months prior to the filing of the suit.

The suit was contested by the defendant, who took the preliminary objections that (a) the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit; (b) that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; (c) that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of the Court fee and jurisdiction (d) that the plaintiff is barred by her act and conduct from filing the present suit, and (c) that the suit is time barred.

On merits, it was denied that the suit property was previously owned and possessed by Lachman Singh son of Ram Singh. It was stated that the said Lachman Singh had got no right, title or interest in the suit property. It was denied that Lachman Singh had sold the suit property to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 28th January, 1963 and that the said sale deed is a forged and fabricated document. It was further staled that the suit property was previously lying as a ''taur'' (vacant plot) and about 25 years back defendant took possession of the same. Thereafter, the defendant raised construction on the suit property. It was averred that the defendant is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 12 years and, therefore, has become owner of the same by way of adverse possession.

The trial Court after framing the issues and recording evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15th March, 1995.

Against the judgment and decree dated 15th March, 1995, the plaintiff went in appeal before the lower appellate court. During the pendency of appeal before the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC for permission to lead additional evidence on the ground that the property in dispute bears No. 15 and the same was allotted by the Rehabilitation Department to Lachman Singh son of Ram Singh and ''Sanad'' in this regard was issued in the name of Lachman Singh on 18th June, 1958 and that the plaintiff succeeded in getting a certified copy of the said ''Sanad'' only on 2nd June, 1994, i.e. during the pendency of the appeal.

This application was resisted by the defendant/petitioner. The lower appellate Court vide impugned order dated 2nd December, 1996, allowed the said application subject to payment of costs of Rs. 350/-. The said order dated 2nd December, 1996, has been challenged by the defendant/petitioner in Civil Revision No. 43 of 1997.

During the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate court, defendant/petitioner also moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the written statement on the ground that a part of the property in dispute shown red in the site plan was the ownership of the grand-father of the defendant/petitioner and the same has percolated to him. However, due to sheer inadvertence, this plea could not be taken in the written statement before the trial Court. The said application filed by the defendant/petitioner was declined by the District Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 2nd December, 1996. The said order dated 2nd December, 1996 has been challenged by the defendant/petitioner in Civil Revision No. 44 of 1997.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

To assail the order dated 2nd December, 1996, whereby the lower appellate Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC for leading additional evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the authority reported as Ganeshrai and Anr. v. First Additional District Judge, Ghazipur and Ors., AIR 1992 Allahabad 25. The said authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The document sought to be produced by the plaintiff/respondent in this case is ''Sanad'' which is an official document and there is no question of the same being fabricated. No doubt the plaintiff had been negligent in not producing it earlier during the trial of the case, but this by itself is not sufficient to decline the production of document which, in fact, goes to the root of the case and would help in effectively deciding the controversy between the parties. For taking this view, 1 derive support from the authorities reported as Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. Vs. Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd., and Ajaib Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab 1987 P.L.R. 226.

Consequently, Civil Revision No. 43 of 1997 filed by the petitioner/defendant is hereby dismissed.

In order to support the application filed by the defendant/petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, for amendment of the written statement the learned counsel contended that no serious injustice is going to be caused to the plaintiff/respondent by the additional plea being raised and that as the plea sought to be raised goes to the root of the case, the same should be allowed in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner further contended that the plea sought to be taken i.e. a part of the suit property as shown red in the site plan had been the exclusive property of the grandfather of the defendant and he inherited the same from his grandfather, is not destructive of the original plea i.e. of adverse possession already taken in the written statement. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the authorities reported as Gulwant Kaur Vs. Mohinder Singh and Others, and Daya Ram v. Puran Chand and Ors. (1974)76 P.L.R. 100.

No doubt, amendment can be allowed at any stage of the case if it goes to help the court in deciding the case between the parties in just and fair manner. It is well settled law that, however, negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. A plaintiff may add a new cause of action and the defendant may add a new defence. Even a new case may be allowed to be introduced. The court has to take into consideration even subsequent events. Another, principle which is also usually considered is that as far as possible multiplicity of suits should be avoided.

The first question that arises is whether or not the leave to amend was properly declined in accordance with the Rules by which that leave must necessarily be regulated. It is well settled that all Rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and subordinate to that purpose so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised.

The plea sought to be taken in the written statement by way of amendment is that the properly in dispute was purchased by Bhagwan Singh, grandfather of the defendant/petitioner and the defendant inherited the same from his grand father. To prove this, the document sought to be produced is ''sanad'' dated 24th March, 1955, executed by the Settlement Officer of the Rehabilitation Department in favour of Bhagwan Singh. It has been stated that the defendant/petitioner came to know of the ''sanad'' dated 24th March, 1955, only on 4th September, 1966. This document cannot be said to be a fabricated one and no injustice will be caused to the other party if this document is allowed to be brought on record by the defendant/petitioner because the other party (plaintiff/respondent) has also been allowed to lead additional evidence in regard to the placing on record ''sanad'' dated 10th June, 1958, issued by the Rehabilitation Department in favour of Lachman Singh. Therefore, it is just, fair and in the interest of justice that both the parties are allowed to lead evidence in respect of the ownership of the disputed property. The defendant/petitioner can be allowed to lead additional evidence if he is allowed to amend the written statement. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is that by allowing amendment, further enquiry into the claim of the defendant shall have to be made, but this in my opinion is not a good ground to refuse the amendment.

For the reasons recorded above, Civil Revision No. 44 of 1997 is allowed and the defendant/petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement, as prayed for in his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, by setting aside the order of the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, impugned in this revision petition. Since, the case is quite old and needs speedy disposal, the Court below are directed to dispose of the same at the earliest.