58 4 CRe No 244 of2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No 244 of 2008 Dateof Decision November 10 2009 1 Singh82others Petitioners 0 Versus C AjaibSingh62 others C5 I CORAM 1 HONBLE NlR JUSTICE VINOD K SHARMA Prcsent Mr Ralnesh Kumar Advocale Z for lhe petitioners r Nlr Parminder SinghAdvocate for the I 888 08 0 VINOD K SHARMA J 2 Z The petitioners have invoked the jurisdictionof this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia to challenge lhe order dated 1710207 passedby the IearnedAdd1 CivilJudge Sr Divn Ludh1ai1a disinissing an application moved by the petitioners LmderOrdel l Rllle 10 readwith Order 6 Rule 17ofthe Code ofCivil procedure The plaintiffl flled a suit for declaration to the effect thal the Iand in dsputewas ancestral coparcenary propertyin the hands o delendant No1 It was also pIlved in tlle Stlll tllal a decrce 01 injunction be issued the dcfendantftom alienatiilg the property in dlspLIte Uma 2012.12.20 16: 12 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 4 CR No 244 of 2008 2 The suit was contested During the pendency of the suit defendantexecuteda transfer deed dated 1732002 the Iand in dispute favour ofhiS SOllS Jawahar Singhand Avtar SinghThe lherefore moved the m ir for alnendmentofthe suit to challenge the transferdeedaild also 0 to implead the transferees as defendantsin the suit C The application was contestedbythe defendantl 011 I C5 the pleathat the ainendmentwil l changethe natureof the suit therefore I could not be perinitted Z The IearnedAddl Civil Judge S Divn 1 Ludhiaila decllned 1 CC theapplication On the that a fresh cause of action had accrueclto lhe I plaintiffsto challenge the actlon of the defendants thercfore theycould 08 bring a fresh suit in view the ofactthat at the tilne of instilution of tlle suit QO the plaintiff1 had no right to seek injunct ion against lhe 7 Z defendanl lvho was admitledly the Kaila 01the oiilt inliildLililli Iy Clw All RameshKumar Iearnedcounsel appearIngon behalfofthe challenged the iinpugned order prilnarily on lhe Iolealllat tlle order impugnedwas to the sett led law regardi ng allletldlllent of pleadings The Iearnedcounsel for the conlcnded thatoas per theseted law the Court should allow all the amendnlentsthatare tlecessary for determining lhe real controversy betwecn the palties tllat lt doesnot cause injustice or prejudice to the other Ioa The Courts while dealingwith the appicationfor aillelldlllent Uma 2012.12.20 16: 12 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 6 C R No 244 of 2008 3 are to deciclewhcther such an anlendnleill is llccesstiry to decide thereal disputebetweenthe patties and Itls not foi the Court lo go 11110 the correctness or falsityof the case while decidingthe applicatiotlfor amendment 1r The Court shoulclalso ilol require lo record a l indingon lhe 0 meritsofthe case at the time theapplotionfor amendtnenl 0 It was also the contention of the Iearned counsel 179rthe I C5 that lhe Courts are bound to take notice of events Ill I order to shorten the litigationso as to prescrle and saleguard the rlghlsof Z both thepartiesand to scrve endsofjustice tr In absenceof any lnala fide the Court should allolv anlendnlent andfurtherthe Iaw ofanlendnlent should beIiberallylinplicd 08 It was also veheinently contendeclby the Iearncd counsel lor the that it is wlell settled law that Court should a Iow tlle em Z ainendtnent if it is for lhe parties lo llle an Slliton thebasisofreliefclaimed to be byIvayofanlendnlent In support of this contention the Iearned counsel lor thc placedreliance on ofthe Honble Suprellle Coliit 111 the case of RujeshKunlar Aggarwal8 others Vs KK Modi others 2006 PLJ 556 The contention of the Iearnedcoullsel oi the furtller was that in the presentcase theainendtllentshould have been allowed ltl Vlew of the posiliveflndingrecordedby the Iearnedtrial C0L11ltllal tllc could 6 Ie a 17eshsuit ancl the ailoencllllentivas ollleiwlise Uma 2012.12.20 16: 12 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 4 CR No 244 of 2008 4 to flnally thedispute betweenlhe patties Nl PartninderSinghIearnedcounsel appeari ng on behalf of the howeller contendedthal thc Iearnedtiial CoLIIlIiItls ligllt 111 the as byway of amendInenlthe wallted to CC change the nature of the suit The contentionof the Iearnedcounsel for the 0 was that the suil originally Illed by the was not 0 maintainablein vielov01 the Iaw Iaid down b1 lh is Court 11 llle case of I C5 RaghubirSinghVs DalipSingh8 Anr 2004 Civil Court Cases 649 I whereinthls Courl had been pleased to Iayclownthat suit br a Soll lo claim Z of coparcenarl propertyOl to seek oinl duringlhe life timeof fatherwas not competent I The learnedcounsel for the tllereafter referredto 08 lhe judginent of the Honble Supreme Court in lhe case of Sunil GuplllVSe Kirun Girhotra c0 Ors 2007 CiviICourt Cuses 813 SCJ to contcnd W2 Z that trallsferee Iite were not necessary joartytherelorc jorayerof tl the for transferees as partyunder Ordei I RLile 10 01 the Code ofCivil Procedurewas also not he learned couilscl for lhe joelionersItl eply to the ofthe learnedcounsel for the piacedreliance 011 the of the Honble Supreme Court in the casc 01 Subhod Kilmar and others VSe NtlmlletlrtiIIMehetre uitll tItlters 121112IPLl7 53 to contendthatthe suit filed bythe iIas flillr cotllloeleill The Honble Supreine Court in the case of Subhod Kumar and others Vs Bhagli7untNamdeorao Melietre tind others supralhas Uma 2012.12.20 16: 12 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 4 CR No 244 of2008 5 beenpleased to Iaydown as under l 24 Althozigh the power 9f disposition familv pr0per07 has been concedecl IO Ihe rnunager ofjoint Hinclujanlil17or the reusollS 410csaidthe Iaw VUlSCS nU presunlption us to m r thevalidityofhis transclctiolls His acts collld be questionedln the Court 0 Iaw The other 0 C memhers f thefamil huve u righl to huve the I traJlSUCIIOn declared void il nol juslll7ei1WlIcn C5 an alienulion IS challenged ux beingunjuslled I or illegalit would be lor the alienee to prrJvethtll Z there lvas Iegalnecessityin Iact or Ihal he mclcle proper and bona17denquir17 US lo the exislence 01suc17necessl17 Il lllloloolld helor 117eIliel7eeIlJ PlOllethc71he did all Ihat 11Ias 1OCISOllt7leItl I 08 satisfJIhllllself OS Io lhe ex islence 01 such 00 necess If the alienation Is Iound t be then it would be declcIredl7uid Sucl e Z alienations ulould be void exceptIll Ihe exlenl f4 r shure i17McIdrtls Bombol017dCenll11 Provinces The purchusercould get onh Ihe share But in other provinces the purchaserwould not get even Ihlll Illltch The entire alienation be void l McnlIles HiIdu lcilr 11 Ed Para 3961 The Iearned counsel for the pctitioncrsalso vchenlently contendedthat the Iearnedcounsel for the respondenls has wronglyplaccd reliance on the udgmentof RughubirSingh 14 DtII Siitgh A Aiii t supra as the petiti oners IoVerc nol claimillgpOSSCSSlOllbtlt il1erely declaration of their rightsin coparcenarypropertyaild once dlere was an Uma 2012.12.20 16: 12 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 1 i CR No 244 of 2008 6 existing rightthe suit originally1iamedseekiilgcleclaialiotl INas CIillloelClll On consideration I Ilnd no force In lhe coillelllioil raisedbythe Ieamedcounsel for the lt is well settled Iavvthat a coparcencr has no rightto seek injunctionagainstKarta ft0111alienatg the propell1 r The onlyremedywith tlle coloarceneriS lO chalIengethe allenalion aftcr 0 alienation is competentas held bythe Honble Suprenlc Cotitl itl tlle casc C of Subhod Kumar ond olhers Vs BhagwantNamdeoruo Mehetre und I C5 others1 supralto which reliance hasbeenplacedbythe Iearnedcounscl 1r I thepetitioilers himsclf Z There can be no dispute that the Courts have 10apjolythe Iaoioof amendment liberalIy and anv amendment which lS necessarv I7or J the real controversylS to be allowed but such anlendnlentcan 08 ClO Olllv be allowed if it docs make 0 ut a c ase for which thcre is not slightcsl VA basis In the plaintas it originallystood A undanlciltal alteration of Z Pleading as a resultof which the Iis assunle a coillpIexloil beyoild theconlIoassof originalcause of action can not be It is lilso weil settleclthat by an1eIldnleilla l3arly cannot be to introducea totallylleW case A partycannot be alIowed to scek ainendmentto completely changethe nature ofhis originalSlllt ln the presentcase the originalsuit filed was 10 seek declaration 0f lhe interesl Ill proIoertwith 21relicf of perlllaileillilljllttiOll theKarta from allenating the propertyThe suiL on the faceof lt was n01lllaintainable as duringthelifetime of Kartaitwas notopen tothe to seek injunction againsllhe alienalloil Uma 2012.12.20 16: 12 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 1 l A CR No 244 of 2008 7 The subsequent alienation bythc Kartagivescausc of actlon to the said sale on the pleaof it being110l for lcgalnecessilyOl Oil any otherpermissible grouildThese was no basis 111lhe originalSUil which couldentltle the pclitioners to amendthe sult illcicln Ic alroid 1 0 The fresh cause of action available to the C thenoto challenee the sale Oll a different groLllld which werc nol basisof the I C5 OriginalSlilt he anlendinent is allowcd IovotildresLIII Ill setllllg UlO I a new casebasedon anew causeof2icti0i1which did notexistal Z the limeoforiginalsuit which cail Ilot be C For lhe reasons slated above thcre IS llll IllClt lll the I revISIOtl petitiollwhich is orderedto be disnlissed bul with no ordcl 21s t1 C45 costs l vma Z NovemberlO2009 VINOD K SHARNIA I sp JllII1 Uma 2012.12.20 16: 12 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document