Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1623 (PNJ)

Dalip Singh v. Jagir Singh

2009-09-14

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 18.02.05, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, vide which, it allowed the application, for the amendment of plaint, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. 2. During the pendency of civil suit No.32/03, instituted, on 17.12.94, for declaration, claiming ownership, in respect of the property, in dispute, an application, was moved for the amendment of the plaint by the plaintiff/respondent, on the ground, that the plea, sought to be incorporated came to his knowledge, subsequent to the filing of the suit. By way of proposed amendment, the plaintiff/respondent, wanted to incorporate, that the judgement and decree dated 18.11.64, in previous case No.270/64, and the mutation, sanctioned, in favour of defendants No.l to 7, were null and void; that Massa Singh, never sold the land comprising khasra No.278; and that he only sold the land comprising khasra No.277. It was further stated that the amendment, was essential, for the just decision of the case. 3. This application, was opposed by the defendants/revision petitioners, on the ground, that the same, was not maintainable. It was stated that no amendment, could be allowed, after the commencement of trial. It was further stated that, by way of amendment, the plaintiff/respondent, wanted to fill up the lacuna left, in his case. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record of the case, the trial Court, allowed the application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of plaint. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the defendants/revision-petitioners. 6. I have heard the Counselfor the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that the suit, was filed, on 17.12.94, but the application, was moved, at a belated stage. He further submitted that, in these circumstances, the same, could not be allowed, but the trial Court, illegally allowed the same. He further submitted that, after the commencement of trial, the amendment, could not be allowed. He further submitted that the order, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. He further submitted that, in these circumstances, the same, could not be allowed, but the trial Court, illegally allowed the same. He further submitted that, after the commencement of trial, the amendment, could not be allowed. He further submitted that the order, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that proviso, engrafted to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was not applicable, to the facts of the instant case, as the suit, was filed, in the year 1994, whereas, the proviso aforesaid came into existence, for the first time, in the year 2002. He further submitted that the amendment, was essential, for the just decision of the case. He further submitted that the plea, sought to be incorporated, by way of amendment, came to the knowledge of the plaintiff/respondent, subsequently. He further submitted that, even law, with regard to the amendment of pleadings, is very liberal. He further submitted that the order, being legal, was liable to be upheld. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. Since the suit, was filed, in the year 1994, the proviso, engrafted to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the effect that the amendment of pleadings, could not be allowed, after the commencement of trial, until and unless, the Court comes, to the conclusion that, despite due diligence, the plea sought to be taken, by way of amendment, could not be taken earlier, came into force in 2002. The same, therefore, was not applicable to the facts of the present case. The law, with regard to the amendment of pleadings, is very liberal. At the time of deciding the application, for amendment, the approach of the Court, should be liberal,to ensure, that substantial justice, is not denied. The procedure is, in the ultimate, the hand maid of justice, meant to advance its cause, than to thwart the same. When the substantial justice and the procedural wrangles, are pitted against each other, then the former will prevail over the latter. The procedure is, in the ultimate, the hand maid of justice, meant to advance its cause, than to thwart the same. When the substantial justice and the procedural wrangles, are pitted against each other, then the former will prevail over the latter. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1267, it was held as under:- "Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of Justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake,negligence inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of the procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that by this blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may, be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side." Relying on this judgment, the Apex Court in M/s Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 484, observed as under: "Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation of particular causes of action must take." Following the dictum of Supreme Court, this Court, in case Sardar Hari Bachan Singh v. Maj. Harbhajan Singh,(1975)77 P.L.R. 21, observed as under:- "It is well settled law that, however, negligent or careless may have been the fist omission and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by way of costs. A plaintiff may add as 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. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by way of costs. A plaintiff may add as 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. A further principle which is also usually considered is that as far as possible multiplicity of suits should be avoided. Where therefore, the plaintiff sought the permission merely to add a prayer for possession which did not after the cause of action or change the essential nature of the suit, and the effect of the refusal of the amendment would have been to drive the plaintiff to fresh suit, the amendment should be allowed" 10. In Baburao v. Maharashtra Insecticides Limited and others, 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 473 (Bombay), it was held that the amendment could be allowed at any stage, and even when the case is reserved for judgment. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, in my opinion the trial Court, was fully justified in allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The order impugned does not suffer from illegality, material irregularity or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, being without substance, is rejected. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.