Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1303 (PNJ)

Kewal Krishan Bhandari v. Mishnu Alias Nishu

2004-12-01

NIRMAL YADAV

body2004
Judgment Nirmal Yadav, J. 1. Petitioner-defendants have filed this revision petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam dated 12.3.2004 dismissing their application for amendment of the written statement. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Mishu, plaintiff through her mother filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is the owner in possession of the house as detailed in head-note (A) and for permanent injunction retraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and from alienating the suit property and further for restraining them from operating the locker mentioned in part (A) of the head-note of the plaint. 3. During the pendency of the suit, defendants moved as application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making amendment in the written statement pleading that mother of the plaintiff, namely, Ruby Puri could not be given permission to operate the locker in a suit for declaration. Such permission can only be sought by filing a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act. The defendants have, however, filed a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act. The defendants want to bring the said facts in their written statement. The defendants also intend to take the plea that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was pleaded that mother of plaintiff wants to misappropriate the property of the minor and that she has contracted second marriage with Rakesh Jain. The said Rakesh Jain committed the murder of his previous wife and a criminal case is pending against him and his mother. It was stated that the defendants want to insert these facts in their written statement for the just decision of the case. 4. Defendants application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff before the trial court stating that the application had been filed to delay the proceedings. The defendants have not produced any evidence despite availing number of opportunities. The averments sought to be raised regarding involvement of husband of Ruby Puri are false. The criminal case registered against Rakesh Jain and his mother has already been disposed of and they have been acquitted of the charge by the Court of Mrs. Sudershna Modi, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. 5. The averments sought to be raised regarding involvement of husband of Ruby Puri are false. The criminal case registered against Rakesh Jain and his mother has already been disposed of and they have been acquitted of the charge by the Court of Mrs. Sudershna Modi, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. 5. The trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the application filed by the defendants, observing that applicants-defendants have already pleaded the facts sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in the written statement, in their earlier written statement. The fact of pendency of criminal case against the husband of Ruby Fun and his mother was well within the knowledge of the applicants at the time of filing of the written statement. The plea regarding jurisdiction of the Court has already been taken in para No. 2 of the legal objections by the defendants in their written statement. 6. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, it is apparent that the petitioner-defendants have not come forward with any new plea. They have already taken all the material averments with regard to their claim, in their earlier written statement No new facts, which came to the knowledge of the petitioners after the filing of the suit/written statement, is sought to be brought on record by way of the amendment. The only plea which the defendants want to bring on record by way of proposed amendment is with regard to the intention of Ruby Puri and her husband to misappropriate the property of Nishnu plaintiff (minor). This fact has been pleaded in their written statement. The fact that Rakesh Jain, the present husband of Ruby Puri and his mother were involved in a criminal case for the murder of his former wife for dowry has no relevance to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, they have been acquitted of the charge by the trial Court. There is nothing on record that these facts were not in the knowledge of the defendants at the time of filing written statement. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.