C.R. No. 3056 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3056 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.5.2009 Manjit Kaur and another ....Petitioners Versus Surinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Lovejinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated April 25, 2009 passed by the learned Court below whereby the application for amendment of plaint seeking to challenge a decree dated March 27, 1990 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar, in a suit titled as Vidya Wati vs. Surinder Pal Singh etc, and sale deeds dated 9.7.1990, 3.8.1990 and 16.8.1990 and mutations sanctioned on the basis thereof was dismissed. The application having been rejected by learned Court below, the petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners came to know about the facts which are sought to be pleaded in the amended plaint only when the amended written statement was filed by the respondents/defendants to the amended plaint filed by the petitioners in December 2007 wherein reference was made to the property owned by Hari Singh in village Chogiti. Thereafter the petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application for supply of paper regarding that property which was furnished by the respondents/defendants only on November 1, 2008. The petitioners/plaintiffs could file application for amendment of the plaint only after the particulars were supplied to them. Prior to that those were not in the knowledge of the petitioners. For going into the real controversy which is in dispute between the parties, the amendment was necessary. The delay, if any, in filing of the application of amendment should not come in way for allowing the amendment as the respondents/defendants could very well be compensated with costs. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submission made. It is a suit which was filed by widow and daughter of Surinder Pal Singh son of Hari Singh claiming share in the property of Hari C.R. No. 3056 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Singh. The defendants in the suit originally filed were widow and another daughter of Hari Singh. Prior to the present application the plaint was amended thrice. In that new defendants were also added. The plea which is now sought to be raised in the written statement regarding the property of village Chogiti was very well mentioned in the written statement originally filed in December 1999 by widow and daughter of late Hari Singh, defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit. It was not something new pleaded by the respondents in the amended written statement filed to the amended plaint of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Merely because on the application of the petitioners certain better particulars have been provided by the respondents regarding the property of village Chogiti, the same will not give a fresh cause of action to petitioner to file an application for amendment. Not only this what is sought to be challenged in the amended plaint now is the judgment and decree suffered by later Surinder Pal Singh in favour of Vidyawati, his mother. In addition to this the challenge is also sought to be made to three sale deeds executed on 9.7.1990, 3.8.1990 and 16.8.1990. Even the vendees in the aforesaid sale deeds are also sought to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. This, in my opinion, will not only change the complex of the suit but also add to multiple reliefs with multifarious new parties which have no relationship with each other. Even otherwise the suit which was filed way back in the year 1999 is only at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. The fact is that the plaintiffs themselves were not letting the proceedings in the suit continue as repeatedly application for different reliefs are being filed. The present application for amendment is fourth in series. Considering the aforesaid facts and conduct of the plaintiffs/petitioners who are fighting a luxury litigation sitting in Germany, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 26.5.2009 JUDGE Reema