C.R. No. 5383 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5383 of 2005 Date of Decision: 26.08.2009 Smt. Inderjit Kaur w/o Gurjant Singh s/o Gurdial Singh, r/o Village Kasiana, Tehsil and District Patiala. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Sher Singh s/o Tirlok Singh r/o village Kasiana, Tehsil and District Patiala. ...Contesting-Respondent 2. Gurdial Singh son of Tirlok Singh; 3. Shingara Singh s/o Gurdial Singh; both r/o village Kasiana, Tehsil and District Patiala. 4. Amar Singh s/o Tirlok Singh, r/o village Kasiana, Tehsil and District Patiala. 5. Shamsher Kaur d/o Tirlok Singh w/o Jaswinder Singh r/o village Chanarthal Kalan, Tehsil and District Patiala. 6. Harbans Kaur w/o Ujagar Singh; 7. Jarnail Singh s/o Ujagar Singh; both r/o village Kasiana, Tehsil and District Patiala. 8. Gurcharan Singh s/o Joginder Singh; 9. Karnail Singh s/o Joginder Singh; 10. Sant Singh s/o Joginder Singh; all r/o village Kasiana, Tehsil and District Patiala. ...Proforma-Respondents C.R. No. 5383 of 2005 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. S.S. Grewal, Advocate, for contesting-respondent No. 1. Respondents No. 2 to 10, are proforma-respondents. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 02.08.05, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, vide which, it allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment of plaint. 2. During the pendency of suit, for declaration, filed by the plaintiff/respondent, an application was moved for the amendment of plaint, under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that although the plaintiff had already pleaded, in the plaint, in regard to the exchange between defendants No. 1 and 6 to 10, regarding the land jointly owned by him (plaintiff) and defendants No. 1, 4 and 5, but the same could not be challenged by him (plaintiff), as illegal, null and void. It was further stated that due to inadvertence, the plaintiff also could not challenge the entries in the jamabandi for the period 1984-85 onwards and mutation No. 490. It was further stated that the aforesaid facts came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, after the filing of the suit. It was further stated that the amendment was essential for the just decision of the case. It was further stated that no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party in case the C.R. No. 5383 of 2005 3 amendment was allowed. 3. This application was contested by the defendants. It was pleaded that the application was not maintainable. It was stated that the plaintiff had no right or authority to challenge the exchange, which was legal, valid and binding upon him. It was further stated that the exchange had already been implemented, in the revenue record, and incorporated in the jamabandis. It was further stated that the plaintiff sold the mortgaged land of his share, out of the total land. He very well knew of the exchange from the very beginning, but had raised no objection. It was further stated that the suit land had already been sold away and the plaintiff was estopped from challenging the exchange. It was further stated that no particulars of exchange were given, in the application. It was further stated that the application be dismissed. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record of the case, the trial Court, accepted the application. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the claim which the plaintiff sought to incorporate, in the plaint, by way of amendment was already barred by time. He further submitted that as such the trial Court, was wrong in allowing the application for amendment as that amounted to taking away the valuable right, which had accrued, in favour of the defendant/revision-petitioner. He further submitted that the order being illegal was liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted C.R. No. 5383 of 2005 4 that the documents which he (plaintiff) wanted to challenge by way of amendment were not in his knowledge at the time of filing the suit. He further submitted that the ingredients of the relief, were already mentioned in the body of the plaint. He further submitted that the amendment was not to change the nature of the suit, but was essential. He further submitted that the order being legal and valid was liable to be upheld. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The suit was filed in the year 1999. Under these circumstances, the proviso engrafted to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the plaint, there was a mention of exchange. The plaintiff sought the declaration that the registered sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1, in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 were illegal, null and void and mutation sanctioned on the basis of the sale deeds was also null and void. It is settled principle of law that the Court should adopt a liberal approach in the matter of amendment of pleadings. The sole criterion before the Court, while deciding the application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of pleadings is, as to whether, the same will sub-serve the ends of justice, or not. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the amendment was essential for the just decision of the case and for sub- serving the ends of justice, then no matter, whether the application was moved at a belated stage, could not dissuade the Court from allowing the same. The amendment sought for, was essential for the just decision of the case. The Court at the time of deciding the application was not to go into the merits of the case. Whether the claim was within limitation or not, was for C.R. No. 5383 of 2005 5 the trial Court to decide, at the time of final decision of the case. The procedure is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance its cause, than to thwart the same. When the substantial justice and the procedural wrangles, are pitted against each other, then the former will prevail over the latter. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969, SC, 1267, it was held as under:- “Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of Justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of the procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that by this blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may, be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.” 10. Relying on this judgment, the Apex Court in M/s Ganesh Trading Co. V. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 (SC) 484, observed as under: “Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substactive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation of particular causes of action must take.” 11. Following the dictum of Supreme Court, this Court, in case Sardar Hari Bachan Singh v. Maj. Harbhajan Singh, (1975) 77 PLR. 21, observed as under:- “It is well settled law that, however, negligent or careless may have been the fist omission and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be C.R. No. 5383 of 2005 6 made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by way of costs. A plaintiff may add as new cause of action and the defendant may add a new defence. Even a new case may be allowed to be introduced. The court has to take into consideration even subsequent events. A further principle which is also usually considered is that as far as possible multiplicity of suits should be avoided. Where therefore, the plaintiff sought the permission merely to add a prayer for possession which did not after the cause of action or change the essential nature of the suit, and the effect of the refusal of the amendment would have been to drive the plaintiff to fresh suit, the amendment should be allowed” 12. In Baburao v. Maharashtra Insecticides Limited and others 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 473 (Bombay), it was held that the amendment could be allowed at any stage, and even when the case is reserved for judgment. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, in my opinion the trial Court, was fully justified in allowing the application for the amendment of plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The order impugned does not suffer from illegality, material irregularity or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without substance, is rejected. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court, on 17.09.09, at 10.00 A.M. sharp, for further proceedings. 26.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE