Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1361 (PNJ)

Ajit Singh v. Jaswinder Kaur

2008-08-12

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.6.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar dismissing an application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for the amendment of the written statement. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of an area measuring 6 kanals in the land situated in the area of village Reru, Tehsil and District Jalandhar on the basis of registered Will dated 3.9.1986 executed by S. Ujjagar Singh son of S. Bhola Singh in her favour. The petitioner also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from obtaining the enhanced compensation in respect of acquisition of aforesaid land and also for the recovery of Rs. 7,33,200/-. 3. Written statement was filed by taking number of objections. In Para No. 2 of the written statement filed by the petitioner it was pleaded as under : "2. That Para No. 2 of the plaint is totally incorrect, wrong and denied. It is absolutely unfounded and wrong that S. Ujjagar Singh executed any registered Will during his life time by which he bequeathed any part of his estate to the plaintiff. S. Ujjagar Singh died intestate leaving behind him the defendant and his brother Shri Santokh Singh and his widow Smt. Chint Kaur as his heirs and legal representatives. However, Smt. Chint Kaur also expired only 4 months after the death of S. Ujjagar Singh so the defendant and his brother Shri Santokh Singh became the only legal heirs and LRs and owners of the suit land and other property left by S. Ujjagar Singh. A valid mutation was also sanctioned by the revenue authorities of the estate of S. Ujjaggar Singh in the name of the defendant and his brother Shri Santokh Singh. Shri Santokh Singh has also unfortunately expired in the year 1989 and his estate has been inherited by his legal heirs and LRs. These facts are known to the plaintiff and she has intentionally omitted to mention them and they have been intentionally concealed with bad motive and intention. The plaintiff has nothing to do with the suit land." 4. Issues were framed and the plaintiff led her evidence. These facts are known to the plaintiff and she has intentionally omitted to mention them and they have been intentionally concealed with bad motive and intention. The plaintiff has nothing to do with the suit land." 4. Issues were framed and the plaintiff led her evidence. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code claiming therein that while preparing for leading evidence a clerical and typographical error came to the notice of the defendant which is material one and is required to be rectified in the interest of justice. It was claimed by the petitioner that the word suit in Para No. 2 was superfluous and was on account of clerical and typographical error and thus, it was claimed that the amendment be allowed and the petitioner be allowed to correct Para No. 2 by deleting the word suit. 5. The application was contested. 6. Leaned trial court came to the conclusion that by way of amendment the petitioner is claiming that after the death of S. Ujjagar Singh he has become owner of the entire property left by S. Ujjagar Singh. Learned trial court came to the conclusion that the pleadings earlier framed also conveyed the same meaning. 7. Mr. N.C. Sahni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh & Anr., 2007(4) RAJ 435 contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained as mere delay could not be a ground for rejection of an application for amendment when no serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the plaintiff. It is also the case of the petitioner that by way of amendment a party is permitted to explain the admission, if any, made in the written statement or in the evidence by filing an application for amendment of the written statement. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, is that it was permissible for the petitioner to get word suit deleted from Para No. 2 of the written statement as drafted. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the law with regard to the amendment of written statement is more liberal than that of a plaint as prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigor as would be in the case of plaint. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the law with regard to the amendment of written statement is more liberal than that of a plaint as prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigor as would be in the case of plaint. 9. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the learned trial court has recorded a finding that there is virtually no change in the written statement earlier filed which is sought to be amended by way of amendment. 10. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law that the delay cannot be a ground to deny the amendment in the pleadings if it does not cause prejudice to the other party. It also cannot be disputed that it is open to the party to explain the admission, if any, made by the party in the written statement or in the evidence. No such situation arises in the present case. 11. It may further be noticed that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code stands amended. By way of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code it has been provided that no application for amendment shall he allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. The amendment sought cannot he said to be one which could not be known by the petitioner before the commencement of the trial i.e. framing of issues. 12. Otherwise also, there is no material change in the pleading as is sought to be contended as in Para No. 2 of the written statement reference is not made only to the suit but the words used are suit land and other property left by S. Ujjagar Singh. Thus, the order passed by the learned trial court is in consonance with the law which does not call for interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.