R.S.A No.536 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : May 18, 2010 1. R.S.A No.536 of 2010 (O&M) 2. C.R No.7622 of 2009 (O&M) Rambhagat vs Manender Kumar and others. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. M.R.Verma, Advocate for the appellant/petitioner. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This order shall dispose of RSA No.536 of 2010 and C.R No.7622 of 2009. The regular second appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of respondents No.1 to 9/plaintiffs that they along with proforma respondents No.13 to 17 are owners in possession of the land measuring 4 bighas and 8 biswas and sale deeds executed are illegal, null and void. In the revision petition, the same petitioner/appellant has challenged an order dismissing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C for amending the written statement in appeal. The plaintiffs had claimed that they had inherited the property R.S.A No.536 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: in dispute from one Murari Lal who was a co-sharer. Both the Courts below held on fact that the said Murari Lal had purchased the suit land in auction on 15.7.1959 in Execution No.112/1956. Both the Courts also rejected the argument that the sale in favour of Murari Lal was in violation of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 of the CPC since no such plea was taken in the written statement. It was this proposed amendment which was declined against which the revision petition has been filed. The following law points have been proposed in the appeal :- “ (a) Whether simple suit of declaration is maintainable ? (b) Whether court can grant decree for possession without any prayer ? (c) Whether the suit is within limitation ? (d) Whether Courts can adopt double standard while appreciating evidence of the parties ? (e) Whether application for amendment in written statement was wrongly rejected by the Addl. District Judge ? (f) Whether the Courts below have mis-read the evidence and mis-interpreted the documents ?” In my opinion, the decision of the appeal would depend upon the decision of the revision petition and the impugned order therein has been challenged on the ground that as far as amendment of written statement is concerned, the law is much more liberal and more particularly since the amendment goes to the root of the matter. The lower appellate Court has held that the petitioner/appellant was allowed one opportunity to R.S.A No.536 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: amend his written statement in the year 2000 and further that the pleas now sought to be raised are barred by limitation since at the time when the original execution proceedings were taking place, no objections were filed and that now a vested right has accrued in favour of respondents No.1 to 9. In my view, no fault can be found with this reasoning. Once this is so, question No. (e) has to be answered against the appellant. Questions No.(a), (b), (d) and (f) are general questions to which no answer is required. As regards question No.(c), it has to be held that the suit based on title is not barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal as well as the revision petition are dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal and the revision petition have since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 18, 2010. JUDGE `kk'