Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1096 (PNJ)

Harbinder Kaur v. Harjinder Singh Sandha

2016-04-07

DARSHAN SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Mr. Darshan Singh, J.:- The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 28.1.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Amritsar whereby the application moved by the plaintiffrespondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter called ‘the CPC’) has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the present suit was filed on 16.7.2013. The application for amendment of the plaint has been filed in May 2015 i.e. after about two years when the trial had already started. Thus, he contended that the order passed by the learned trial Court is violative of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 3. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 4. The plaintiff-respondent had sought the amendment in the plaint to challenge the Will dated 6.4.1994 allegedly executed by Gur Kaur in favour of Kartar Singh and the sale deed dated 17.11.1998 executed by Kartar Singh in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. This fact is not disputed that even in the original plaint, the plaintiffrespondent has pleaded that the Will dated 6.4.1994 and the sale deed dated 20.11.1998 were illegal, so, in the body of the plaint, the Will dated 6.4.1994 and the sale deed dated 20.11.1998 were already assailed. However, the plaintiff has not specifically challenged those documents in the headnote of the plaint and no relief qua those documents has been sought in the prayer clause. So, the amendment sought was only the addition in the heading and prayer clause of the plaint which was not going to change the nature of the suit. 5. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that the procedural law is handmaid to the administration of justice. The party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. To support this view, reference can be made to case Mahila Ramkali Devi and others versus Nandram(D) Thr. LRs. and others, [2015(3) Law Herald (SC) 2579 : 2015 LawHerald.Org 1335 : 2015(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2839 (SC)] : 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 562. 6. To support this view, reference can be made to case Mahila Ramkali Devi and others versus Nandram(D) Thr. LRs. and others, [2015(3) Law Herald (SC) 2579 : 2015 LawHerald.Org 1335 : 2015(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2839 (SC)] : 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 562. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Surender Kumar Sharma versus Makhan Singh, [2009(5) Law Herald (SC) 3487] : 2009 (4) RCR 597 has laid down that the belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, the amendment was necessary. 7. Thus, the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the application has been filed after about two years of the institution of the suit cannot be made a ground to decline the request of the respondent-plaintiff particularly when the alleged Will has already been pleaded to be illegal in the original plaint. 8. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed.