1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5266 of 2010. Date of Decision: 22.7.2011 *** Ajit Kaur .. Petitioner VS. Pritam Kaur & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Niti Wadhawan, Advocate for Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Pankaj Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.6. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint as well as impleadment of the Jagir Singh, Balbir Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Harvinder Singh, on account of subsequent events, has been declined by the learned trial Court, leading to the institution of the present revision petition. Heard. It is evident from records that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to the effect that Pritam Kaur has no right to alienate, dispose of or mortgage the suit land in favour of anybody and certain sale-deeds executed by her in favour of remaining defendants were also challenged. It has also come on record that during pendency of the suit, defendants No.7 and 8 therein further alienated some portion of the suit property in favour of aforesaid four persons vide sale-deeds dated 8.10.2009 and 13.10.2009. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint and through the proposed amendment she sought to incorporate the prayer to challenge the 2 aforesaid sale-deeds in favour of aforesaid persons, including the prayer for their impleadment as a necessary party in the suit. The learned trial Court turned down her prayer on the ground that the transaction in favour of Jagir Singh etc. since is hit by lis pendens, they are bound by the decree to be passed in the case and as such, they are not the necessary party and the plea of the plaintiff for amendment of plaint is just a delay tactics. But in the considered opinion of this Court, the approach adopted by the learned trial Court is erroneous. Order VI Rule 17 CPC deals with the amendment of pleadings and provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The dominant object to allow the amendment in the pleadings liberally is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is equally well settled that unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side, the Court should adopt liberal approach and not a hyper-technical approach particularly in a case where the other side can be compensated with costs. The amendment so sought does not involve change of cause of action. In the instant case it were the subsequent events that necessitated the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint, i.e. the transfer made in favour of Jagir Singh etc. No doubt the transaction carried out during the pendency of lis attracts the provisions of lis pendens, but on that ground alone the plaintiff cannot be debar to suitably amend the pleadings in respect of the events which took place after the filing of the suit and especially when the cause of action in the main suit is not going to be changed. Further, in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 2209 the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that a transferee pendente lite can be impleaded as a party if his interest in the subject matter of suit is substantial and not just peripheral and the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alinee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interest. It is evident that defendants No.6 and 7 stepped into the shoes of defendant No.1, whose authority do so has been challenged in the suit and now subsequently defendants No.6 and 7 have sold that part of the suit land to Jagir Singh etc. Thus, in the light of legal 3 position above, they ought to have been impleaded as defendants in the suit and there would be no impediment in their becoming party, rather it would help the learned trial Court to adjudicate the issue in a better manner. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the instant revision petition is allowed. The order under challenge, is quashed. The petitioner is allowed to amend the plaint and to join Jagir Singh etc. as defendants, as prayed for, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the defendants before the Trial Court. On her doing so, the learned trial Court shall take on record the amended written statement and thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law. Keeping in view the fact that suit is pending since 1999 the learned trial Court is directed to decide the same within next nine months. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 22,2011 Jiten