Civil Revision No.5667 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5667 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.11.2010 Lakhwinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Gurtinder Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN. Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Thind, Advocate for the respondent. **** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Samana dated 22.07.2010, by which the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the ‘CPC’) for amendment of the plaint, in order to insert the pleadings, that the land in village Gurditpura was purchased out of the joint family funds and plaintiff being a member of the joint Hindu Family has every right, title interest therein, has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Gian Singh had two sons, namely, Kanwaljit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh. Kanwaljit Singh died and left behind his widow Sukhjit Kaur. Gian Singh had land in two villages, namely, Arno and Gurditpura. He allegedly executed a will dated 28.07.1998 of the entire land in favour of the plaintiff Lakhwinder Singh and defendant Gurtinder Singh - 1 Civil Revision No.5667 of 2010 in equal shares. The plaintiff challenged the transfer of land of village Arno by Gian Singh by way of transfer deed dated 04.10.2006 in favour of petitioner on the basis of which mutation was also sanctioned on 09.10.2006. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application for amendment to allege that the suit property is an ancestral and could not have been transferred by Gian Singh. However, in the amendment application the property of the village Gurditpura has been mentioned instead of village Arno about which the suit has been filed because the transfer deed (Tabdil Malkit) pertains to the land of village Arno and not to Gurditpura. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has passed the order without considering this aspect of the matter as a result of which a material irregularity has been committed in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent has accepted the error in the order of the learned trial Court, however, he submits that he may be allowed to file appropriate application for bringing on record proper facts by way of amendment with regard to the land of village Arno. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and especially the error on the face of record, the impugned order is set aside. Revision petition is allowed. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to file an appropriate application, if so advised, in accordance with law. 30.11.2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vcgarg JUDGE - 2