Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1386 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh alias Bachan Singh v. Bagga Singh

2001-12-10

M.M.KUMAR

body2001
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.11.1993 passed by the Sub Judge III Class, Patiala declining the application of the plaintiff-petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code). 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3, 000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realisation. After the plaintiffs evidence was recorded he moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment of the plaint for a limited purpose of adding the other name of his father. In the plaint, the plaintiff-petitioner has named one Ram Singh as his father. Through amendment, he sought to bring on record that his father was also known as Lachman Singh. It is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that only one witness was produced by his client and he has no objection if that witness is recalled for cross- examination, if any, to be conducted by defendant-respondent on account of the addition of the other name of his father. 3. I have heard Shri Kuldip Sanwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner and have perused the record. 4. The grounds for rejection of the application seeking aforesaid amendment taken by the learned trial Court is that the defence taken by the defendant- respondent would be prejudiced and at this belated stage. The plaintiff- petitioner cannot be permitted to fill the gap in his evidence and also that no documentary proof has been supplied by the plaintiff-petitioner to substantiate that Ram Singh is also known at Lachhman Singh. The order of the learned trial Court reads as under : "I have heard the ld. counsel for the parties. Ld. counsel for the defendant-respondent argued that as per para 3 of his written statement the agreement on the basis of which plaintiff has filed the present recovery suit was cancelled when he verified about the ownership of land from the revenue record and from where he came to know that plaintiff Pritam Singh son of Ram Singh does not own any agricultural land and by supplying another name at this belated stage, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to fill a gap in his evidence. I find that as the plea taken by the defendant-respondent is specific and if the proposed amendment is allowed it shall altogether shatter the defence of the defendant as it cannot be allowed at this stage. Further no documentary proof has been supplied by the plaintiff-applicant to substantiate that Lachhman Singh is father of the plaintiff and that Lachhman Singh is also known by the name of Ram Singh. As such I disallow the application of the plaintiff-applicant with no order as to costs." 5. Shri Kuldip Sanwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has submitted that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit nor there would be a change of cause of action. According to the learned counsel, the amendment would be helpful in solving the controversy in issue and would also avoid multiplicity of the litigation. He further contends that the procedural law is hand-maid of justice and not meant to obstruct the same. He still further submits that once the defendant-respondent is allowed to cross-examine the sole witness his client has produced then it cannot be claimed that the defence of the defendant-respondent would be prejudiced in any manner. 6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, I am of the view that the trial Court has adopted a technical approach with regard to the trivial amendment which was sought to be introduced by the plaintiff-petitioner. It is repeatedly observed by the Supreme Court that in order to administer substantial justice any obstruction in procedure should be creased out. In State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari, AIR 1976 SC 1177, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under : "......... We must always remember that procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. Where the non-compliance, though procedural, will thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities......." 7. But grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities......." 7. I am further of the view that the proposed amendment would not in any manner cause any prejudice to the defendant-respondent because if Ram Singh, father of the plaintiff-petitioner, is not known as Lachman Singh it can easily be exposed during cross-examination. The plaintiff-petitioner has given an undertaking that the sole witness examined by him would also be recalled for cross-examination. I also deem it appropriate to allow the defendant-respondent to produce any witness in their defence on the question of newly added name of the father of the plaintiff-petitioner. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed and the petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to make addition by supplying alias name of his father. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala on 9.1.2002. In view of the fact that the proceedings in this case have remained stayed, I deem it appropriate to direct that proceedings in this case be completed and judgment pronounced as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Revision allowed.