Civil Revision No. 7715 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7715 of 2011 Date of decision. 14.12.2011 Ankur Bajaj .... Petitioner Versus Hans Raj and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 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? Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Ankur Bajaj, the plaintiff is before me as petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 04.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Fazilka whereby his application for impleading Hans Raj and others as defendants no. 5 to 9 and for making consequential amendments under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 51 kanals 15 marlas situated in village Naulan, Tehsil Fazilka is joint Hindu family property of the plaintiff and defendant no.3 and that the decree dated 13.06.1990 passed in Civil Suit No.866-1 of 1990 Civil Revision No. 7715 of 2011 --2-- titled 'Maya Bai etc. v. Hardial' by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Fazilka is illegal, null and void and collusive and therefore liable to be set aside. The suit has been contested by the defendants. After the evidence of the parties had been over and the case was being prepared for arguments, it came to the notice of learned counsel for the plaintiff that Hans Raj and others are required to be impleaded as defendants no. 5 to 9. He has claimed in the application that Hans Raj and Mehar Chand are purchasers of the suit land and they are required to be impleaded as defendants no. 5 and 6. He has further claimed that they were found to have alienated the suit land in favour of Mangat Ram and Raj Kumar during the pendency of the suit and so both of them are required to be impleaded as defendants no. 7 and 8. It is further claimed that Raj Kumar mortgaged the land in favour of PNB Cycle Bazar and, therefore, PNB Cycle Bazar is required to be impleaded as defendant no.9. Plaintiff has claimed that these facts are also required to be incorporated in the plaint by way of paragraphs 8-A to 8-C as well as in the relief clause. It is further claimed that the amendment if allowed would avoid multiplicity of the suits and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. It is, however, claimed that if the amendment is not allowed, the plaintiff would be highly prejudiced. The application has been opposed by defendant no.1 claiming that purchase of land by Hans Raj and Mehar Chand sons of Babu Ram was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. According to him, further alienation in Civil Revision No. 7715 of 2011 --3-- favour of Mangat Ram and Raj Kumar had been there before filing of the suit. It is claimed that their names are clearly mentioned in the copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-01, which are Ex.P-1 and D-2 on the record. It is further claimed that the plaintiff did not make them parties to the suit at the time of the filing of the suit for the reasons best known to them. By way of amendment, the plaintiff wants to fill up lacunae left in the suit. It is further averred that if any purchase of land is made during the pendency of the suit, the principle of lis-pendens would take care the interest of the plaintiff. The other averments of the plaintiff are denied and the application is prayed to be dismissed. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 04.11.2011. Learned trial court has noticed that the suit was filed on 07.05.2004 and the names of the aforesaid persons were reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2000-01, (Ex.P-1), which is placed on the file by the plaintiff himself. Learned trial court has repelled the contention of the plaintiffs that as mutation had not been sanctioned, they could not be impleaded by observing that any transaction of transfer of property is incorporated in the jamabandi only after sanctioning of the mutation. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Though the dates of alienation in favour of Hans Raj and Mehar Chand and thereafter in favour of Mangat Ram and Raj Kumar are not mentioned, yet the fact that their names are there in the jamabandi for Civil Revision No. 7715 of 2011 --4-- the year 2000-01 would show that the sales were made earlier to that. Jamabandi, Ex.P-1 reflecting their names has been brought on the record by the plaintiff himself and it cannot be said that he did not know about the sale of the suit land in their favour when he was filing the suit. The fact that mutation was not sanctioned in favour of these persons at the time of filing the suit would not justify the plaintiff keeping them out of the array of respondents-defendants. Learned trial court has rightly observed that this submission is devoid of force. It is correct to observe that names of these persons would have been reflected in the jamabandi after the mutation had been sanctioned and as their names had come in the jamabandi for the year 2000-01, the mutation would be presumed to have been sanctioned much earlier to that. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the addition of Hans Raj and Mehar Chand, Mangat Ram and Raj Kumar would avoid multiplicity of suits and as the applicant is the plaintiff himself, it cannot be said that he is trying to delay the disposal of the suit by making this application. This submission would not convince me in accepting the prayer for impleading of defendants no. 5 to 9 and consequential amendment of the plaint. The alienations made in favour of the parties sought to be added as defendants no. 5 to 8 had been made much prior to the filing of the suit. It cannot be said that the plaintiff was not aware of this fact. Moreover, it is not stated so in the application. So the application for implement of defendants and consequential amendment is not bonafide. It is nowhere laid down that if the plaintiff applies for amendment, it should Civil Revision No. 7715 of 2011 --5-- be allowed because it is he who would be interested in early disposal of the suit and the charge of delaying the proceedings of the suit cannot be levelled against him. The defendants, who are facing the trial can also claim that the plaintiff wants to delay the disposal of the suit by making the amendment and trying to require a denovo trial. In these circumstances, learned trial court has been fully justified in declining the prayer made by the plaintiff, vide the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. 14.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge