Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2349 (PNJ)

Shankar Lal v. Raj Kumar

2016-08-30

DARSHAN SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : DARSHAN SINGH, J. The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rajpura, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff-respondents no.1 and 2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short C.P.C.) for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier the plaintiffs have filed the Suit No. 116T/14.03.2000/09 on the same cause of action. In that suit also the plaintiffs-respondents have filed the application for amendment of the plaint to introduce the similar facts. But, the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the order was even upheld by this Court in Civil Revision No. 934 of 2011 decided on 09.02.2011. He contended that thereafter, plaintiffs-respondents moved an application for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file the fresh suit on the same cause of action due to the technical defect. That application was also dismissed by the learned trial Court. But, in the Civil Revision No.1589 of 2011 decided on 22.03.2012, this Court allowed the plaintiffs- respondents to withdrawn the suit with liberty to file the fresh suit on the same cause of action. Thereafter, the present suit has been instituted. Now, again the plaintiffs have moved an application for amendment of the plaint on the similar lines, as in the application filed in the earlier suit. He contended that in the main suit it has been pleaded that the suit property was allotted to Suhara Ram, the grandfather of the plaintiffs in view of the properties left by him in West Pakistan. Now, the plaintiffs want to plead that the said properties were left by Shiama Ram, the great grandfather of the plaintiffs. He contended that this amendment will change the nature of the suit. 3. He further contended that the trial has already commenced and as per proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendment cannot be allowed. Thus, he pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 5. He contended that this amendment will change the nature of the suit. 3. He further contended that the trial has already commenced and as per proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendment cannot be allowed. Thus, he pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 5. Plaintiffs-respondents no.1 and 2 have moved the application for seeking the following amendment in the plaint:- “That in the sixth line of Para no.1 after the word “by” and before the word “in” name of Suhara Ram is to be replaced with word “Shiama Ram”.” The aforesaid portion shows that in para no.1 of the plaint in 6th line they only want to substitute the name of Shiama Ram in place of Suhara Ram. No other amendment in the plaint has been sought. Relevant portion of the original plaint reads as under:- “The value of this house was assessed as Rs. 2710/- and a sum of Rs. 2645.63/- was the value of the ancestral properties left by Suhara Ram in Pakistan and a sum of Rs. 64/37/- were paid in cash by Suhara Ram to the Pepsu Township Development Board.” 6. By way of amendment, plaintiffs-respondents only wants to replace Shiama Ram in place of Suhara Ram in the underlined portion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Abdul Rehman and another Vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others 2012(4) R.C.R(Civil) 481, has laid down that power to allow amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of proceedings in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation. All the amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties should be allowed, if it does not change the basic nature of the suit. 7. No doubt, as per the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short C.P.C), the amendment in the pleadings after the commencement of the trial shall not be allowed unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. But, at the same time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Mahila Ramkali Devi and others Vs. Nandram (D) Thr. But, at the same time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Mahila Ramkali Devi and others Vs. Nandram (D) Thr. L.Rs and others 2015(5) R.C.R (Civil) 562, has been laid down that 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 rules of procedure. In case Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh 2009(4) R.C.R (Civil) 597, the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 is necessary, it can be allowed on payment of costs. 8. This fact cannot be disputed that plaintiffs-respondents have only sought the amendment of the plaint in order to just mention the name of Shiama Ram in place of Suhara Ram in 6th line of the para no.1 of the plaint. The mistake of name can be clerical or typographical mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. So, respondents should not be made to suffer because of some mistake, negligence or inadvertence on the part of their counsel. The amendment sought is also essential to determine the real controversy between the parties. Thus, the application moved by the plaintiffs-respondents cannot be rejected merely on the basis of delay in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surender Kumar Sharma's case (Supra). 9. I do not find any substance in the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment sought by the plaintiffs- respondents will in any way change the nature of the suit. It is just the substitute of the correct name at one place. No other change/amendment is being sought anywhere in the plaint. 10. Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Thus, the present revision petition having no merits, is hereby dismissed.