C.R.No.1720 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1720 of 2011 Date of decision 11.3.2011 Narinder Singh and another Petitioners versus Harbhajan Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri,Advocate for the petitioners ...... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.2. 2011 Annexure P5 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rajpura whereby the application Annexure P-3 for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The petitioners are seeking amendment in the plaint which are as under:- 1(a) That the land measuring 34 Bighas 12 Biswas mentioned in the heading of the plaint is in ownership of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the total land is an agricultural land except (0-5) Bishwas which are gair mumkin samadhs of the predecessors of the plaintiffs. 1(b)That the land in question is a private property and has no concern with any dera and other religious Institution and whole property mentioned in the heading of the plaint remained in possession and ownership of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the same is not C.R.No.1720 2011 2 utilized for any charitable purposes and the entries in the revenue record are continuous earlier to 1946-1947 as Samadh Ba-Itmam Sadhu Ram Chela Tarbeni Dass, Caste-Sadh Garib Dassi, Sakan Deh Malak Kabja. 1(c)That the Samadh in question is an ancestral property of the predecessors of the plaintiffs and as per reports of the Revenue Department the Samadhs in question have no concern with the Dharam Arth Board and are not entered in the Dharam Arth property Register, Rajpura. The copy of the report of Kanungo dated 5.8.2008, 23..7.2008 alongwith letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala dated 16.12.2005 and copy of Repat Roznamcha No.282 dated 5.2.2005 are attached. 1(d)That there was no Bhekh Garib Dass. Moreover, the predecessors of the plaintiffs were Sadh Garib Dassi. Similarly there was no Mohtamim of Samadhs as the Samadh in (0-5) Bishwas alongwith other land is owned and possessed by plaintiffs. The defendants filed reply to the application and prayed for dismissal of the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the record shows that in the plaint, it has been clearly mentioned that the property in question is owned by the Samadh Ba-Itmam Sadhu Ram Chela Tribani Dass of Bhekh Garib Dass and the petitioners are seeking amendment in the plaint to the extent that the property in question is a private and ancestral of the predecessors of plaintiff. It has no Dera or Bhek Garib Dass or Mohtmim etc. The petitioners are seeking amendments after a period of ten years only to prolong the litigation. The amendments sought by way of this application are not consistent with the pleas taken in the plaint. In my C.R.No.1720 2011 3 considered opinion, if amendments are allowed at this stage, the same would amount to setting up altogether a new case from the beginning. In Baldev Singh & Ors. V.Manohar Singh & Anrs. 2006(3) RCR (Civil),844: 2006(2) RCR (Rent) 265:2007(4) RAJ 435 SC, to say that the inconsistent pleas may be allowed to be made in the written statement but may not be allowed in a plaint. Reference is also made to Prem Chand v. Chetan Dass, 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 164 (P&H) in this regard. It is observed in this case that power to allow amendment/s is meant to be exercised only in appropriate cases in the interest of justice. The liberal approach should not result in injustice and prejudice to the other party. It is further observed that the party cannot be allowed to add or substitute a new cause of action or nature of claim or an inconsistent plea to the admitted facts or to introduce a time barred claim by way of amendment. In the instant case, the amendments sought for are inconsistent with the pleas taken in the plaint. The same cannot be allowed and the trial court rightly rejected the application of the petitioners. In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed in limine. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 11.3.2011 MS Note:Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.