Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 234 (PNJ)

Baljeet Singh v. Ram Pal

2020-01-20

ALKA SARIN

body2020
Judgment Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.:- The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2016 vide which the application for amendment of the plaint moved on behalf of the plaintiffpetitioner was dismissed. 2. In brief, the facts relevant to the present case are that the land in question measuring 3 kanals and 4 marlas comprising Khewat No.1369, Khatoni No.1634, Rectangle No.96 Killa No.7/1 (3-4), Kitta-1 is situated within the revenue estate of Village Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, vide jamabandi for the year 2010-2011. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-petitioner that the land mentioned above came after bandobast and consolidation in lieu of land comprised in old khasra Nos.1406, 4918, 5696, 5715, 5716, 5717, 5719, 5720, 5722, 5724, 5726, 5727, 5728, 5730, 5731 to 5743, 5745 to 5748, 5706, 5771, 5777, 5778, 5779, 6187, 6188, 6189, 6190, 5721, 5725, 5723, 5729, 5744 (78 Bighas – 3 Biswas), Khewat No.641, Khatoni No.667 vide jamabandi for the year 1882-83. It was further the case set up that Musamat Mangla wife of Ganga Ram and Vikram Singh son of Kahna, the predecessors-ininterest of the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the land to the extent of 2/3 share of the land mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-petitioner that the land mentioned in para-2 of the plaint was apportioned between the owners and was divided in the khewats including the suit land and separate khatonis were allotted to the mortgagor i.e. predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff-petitioner and two separate suits for redemption of other two parts of the land were also being filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. It was further pleaded that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-petitioner i.e. Musamat Mangla wife of Ganga Ram and Vikram Singh son of Kahna had mortgaged the land with possession with Samanda, adopted son of Harlal and Nand Lal, adopted son of Ram Lal, the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants for an amount of Rs.99/- as mortgage money vide jamabandi for the year 1882-1883 as mentioned in column No.4. It was further the case that the defendants-respondents are transferees of the mortagee rights. 3. Written statement was filed by the defendants-respondents denying the contents of the plaint and thereafter replication was also filed. It was further the case that the defendants-respondents are transferees of the mortagee rights. 3. Written statement was filed by the defendants-respondents denying the contents of the plaint and thereafter replication was also filed. On 07.11.2016, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) and it was stated in the application that one of the mortgagees was Karam Singh, son of Kahna but, due to a typographical mistake, name of the said Karam Singh had wrongly been written as Vikram Singh in first line of para-3, second line of para-6 and second line of table in para 10 of the plaint in the column “Name of mortgagor”. It was stated that the said mistake was not intentional or wilful but due to bona fide mistake. Reply was filed to the said application. The trial Court vide order dated 11.11.2016 dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the trial had commenced long ago and allowing the present application would amount to re-opening of the case. Hence, the present revision petition challenging the said order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the considered view that the mistake committed in the plaint wherein the name of Vikram Singh has been written instead of Karam Singh, son of Kahna, does not appear to be an intentional error or an attempt to change the nature of the suit. It is merely an amendment to correct the name of the mortgagor. It would be seen that the parentage of both Karam Singh and Vikram Singh is the same and, hence, not too much would turn on the said amendment. It is a settled law that ordinarily a Court would not deny a bona fide and legitimate amendment. It is also a settled principle of law that while allowing amendment of pleadings, particularly, in a case, where the other side can be compensated with costs, the amendment should not be denied. In the present case, the mistake appears to be genuine and the relief of amendment necessitated after a mistake, negligence or inadvertence on the part of the counsel ought not to be denied. 5. In view of the above, I allow the present revision petition and set aside the order dated 11.11.2016 allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. In the present case, the mistake appears to be genuine and the relief of amendment necessitated after a mistake, negligence or inadvertence on the part of the counsel ought not to be denied. 5. In view of the above, I allow the present revision petition and set aside the order dated 11.11.2016 allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. The said amendment is allowed subject to payment of Rs.30,000/- as costs, to be paid by the plaintiff-petitioner to the defendants-respondents herein.