Civil Revision No. 5955 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5955 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 27th,2011 Jaswinder Singh Makkar .... Petitioner Versus Balbir Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The plaintiff – Jaswinder Singh Makkar has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 1.8.2001 (Annexure P5) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed. The plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in joint possession of land measuring 23 kanals 8 marlas on the basis of sale deed dated 27.11.1997. He had further challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1991 passed in civil suit No. 1063 of 1990 titled Balbir Singh Versus Civil Revision No. 5955 of 2011 2 .. Daya Singh as illegal, inoperative as also the judgment and decree dated 8.1.2000 passed in civil suit No. 50 of 1999 titled Balbir Singh Versus Daya Singh and others, as illegal. He had also sought permanent injunction for staying the execution of judgment and decree dated 26.9.1991. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff came to know that in pursuance of judgment and decree dated 26.9.1991, sale deed dated 7.6.2010 has been executed. Relief of declaration regarding this sale deed is sought to be added to the suit by filing application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The application was resisted by defendant no.1, while defendants No. 3 to 5 had expressed no objection to the prayer made in the same. Defendant no.1 had claimed the sale deed dated 7.6.2010 to have been legal and valid, executed in terms of judgment and decree dated 26.9.1991. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court found no merit in the application and dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Puneet Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the apprehension of learned trial court that the amendment would reopen the case and would require a de novo Civil Revision No. 5955 of 2011 3 .. trial is unfounded. According to him, no fresh evidence has to be led in this case because the sale deed in question is an off-shoot of decree dated 26.9.1991, which is already challenged by the plaintiff. According to him, this amendment was sought just to avoid multiplicity of suits. According to him, apart from the same, he had also applied for deleting one of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. He has further submitted that the bonafides of the plaintiff are quite evident in this case and the same cannot be held doubtful. It is true that the sale deed in question would be hit by the principle of lis pendence. However, if the said sale deed is not challenged by way of this suit and no verdict has come thereon, the same would give rise to another round of litigation. When the plaintiff is not to lead any evidence and has just to add a few lines to his plant, challenging the sale deed in question executed on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1991, the object of avoiding multiplicity of suits would be achieved if the amendment was allowed. Learned trial court was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application. The impugned order, therefore, is unsustainable. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside, allowing the application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. Since the sale deed dated 7.6.2010 is a subsequent event and there is no Civil Revision No. 5955 of 2011 4 .. delay in bringing the application, the plaintiff/petitioner is not burdened with costs. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 27th , 2011 som