47 Civil Revision N03583 of 2009 1 1 IN IlI7 IllGl COUR1 Ol 19UNJA13 2e I IARYANA AT Cl IANIOIGARI 1 Civil Revision No583 of 2009 IOccidcd 01129OlO 1 Krishan Chand and othcrs Pctiti oners 0 C0 Versus Pa m C5 I Puncct and othcrs Z r CORAM IIONBLE MR JUSTlCE KC PURI 4 08 Prescnt Mr AP13handari Advocate lor thc pctitioncrs Mr BSana Advocatc for thc rcspondcnts m KCPURI J This is a rcvision pctitionprcferrcdby defcndantctitioners for scttingasidc thc ordcr datcd 242009 0AnncxurcI29 passedby Civil Judgc6JuniorDivisionl Kaithal vidc which thc applicationmovcd by the prcscnt for amcndlncntofthcir writlcn stalcmcnt has bccn dismisscd Succinctlythc facts as cmanatingfrom thc plcadingsare that fllcd a suit for dcclaration posscssionand for mesnc profltsagainstthc prcscntpctitioners on 52007 and in conscqucnccofthc Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 14: 45 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 48 1 1 Civil Rcvision N03583 of 2009 2 4 said suit thc pctitioncrsappearcdbcfore lhe Court and Oled written statcment and the case was Oxed for cvidencc of thc plaintifO lhc movcd ilnpugnedapplicalionfcr anlcndmcnt of thc writtcn statcmcnt Thc aincndmcnts which thc petitionerswant are reproducdbclow 1 al 111ataftcr existing para No 60fthe Writtcn statemcnt 0 followingis to bc addcdl CS3 Bassi 13aihad died who cxecutcd a dulycxccutcd and m C5 attestcd Iast Wil which is rcgistcrcdwith dated I 17 l 000 and rcgistcrcd Oll 1712000 all Z hcr propcrtyin favour of dcfcndant No 2 and 3 her daughtcrs So owncrship ofplaintiffallegcd in this para I ofplaintis dcnicd spccifically 08 b9 hat aftcr and of existingpara No 8 of the writtcn oo statctnc nt followingis lo bc addcdl Z 13assi 13aicxccutcd a salc dccd in favour of defendant Nol which is legalvalid ln the altcrnativc it 1S validatcd to the extent I3assi 13alis found to be the OWllCl byCourt Shc also cxccutcd Rclcase 10eeddatcd 103000 in favour of daughtcrsof I3assi 13ai aftcr rclcasc Dccd datcd 103000 arc not bound by rcsult of Iitigation bctwccn hcr and plaintiffs as lcgallytheywerc nccessary parly of suit fllcd aftcr Rclcasc Deed as for purposcof said suit daughtcrs arc not claiiningunder I3assiI3ai aller flling of said suit and said dccision o f eve 6eae a Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 14: 45 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 49 1 Civil Rcvision N03583 of 2009 3 4 1itigationbctwccn l3assi I3ai and plaintiffs is neither binding nor relcvanl against dcfcndantsNo 2 and 3 Morcovcr Smt 13assi13aidtiringher lifc timc got duly cxecutcdand duly altcstcd rcgistcrcd Will a last Will datcd 171 000 in favourof No 2 W and 3 who havc succccdcd to what cver property1S foundto bclongcd to hcr Thus plaintiffs arc not the heir of 13assiI3ai as thcydid tlot inherit any of hcr property I C9 ltis also dcnicd lhat plainliffNo l is onlylegalheir of 1adha Ram as alrcadyrcplicdabovc Dcfcndant No l is Z owncr of 24 kanals 1 nlarlas or defcndantsNo 2 and 3 a2 arc owncrs if salc is hcid void for any reason I Defcndants No 2 and 3 arc Icgalhcirs of I3assi 13ai 08 undcr hcr dcvils excculcd Will Plaintiff Suman has C10 rClllarriedand kIsthcr rightscvcn ifany 3 Z cl lhat aftcr cxistingpara no 90fthc writtcn statcmcnt Om followingis to bc addcd lt is also dcnicd that Slnt 13assiI3aihad a Iimitcd cstatCe 50 d1 That allcr cxisling para No 10 of thc writlell statcment Iollowingis to be addcdl It is also dcnicd that undcr thc Will of Sh 1adha Raln 13assiBai had Iiinitcd rightsShc had rightsof absolutc ownc c1 That aflcr cxisting para nOe 14 of tllc wriltell Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 14: 45 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SO 7 Civil Revision N05583 of 2009 4 slatcmcnt followingis to bc addcd laintiff has dclibcralclygivcnwrong valuation to avoid paymcnt0 courl fcc and Ior thc purposc of Ad vcloram Court lcc is payablc 011 sale dccd valuc of land and valuc of houscs itsclf is not lcss 1 t than RsA00001 cach for houscs Val uc for thc purposcsof houscs is not Rs301 but Rs800001 value for dcclaralon is as pcr valuc 01 salc priceon salc decd I C5 value of land is Rs 10 Iacs jocr acre Suit is thus not I propcrlyvalucd for thc purposcs of courl fee and Z j uri sdiction 1ll is ISSLIC bc trcatcd as prcliininary1SSUC 2 1 and plaintbc rcccted as it clccts lhe jurisdiction of I court aiso 01 08 Aftcr scekingrcplylo lhc abovc applicationfrom lhe plaint oo and hcaring lhc Icarncd counsel Ilr lhc parlics thc trial Court V7 Z dismissed the application holdingthat thc plcastlOW soughtto bc pleadcd Om by thc defcndantpconcr wcrc vcrv much availablc to lhcm al the time of flling the Wrtltcn statemcnt and tllc samc pleascannot bc allowcd byway ofamcndmcnt Fcclingdiswsatisfledwith thc allorcsaidordcr thc dcfcndants applicants haveprclcrrcdthc instantrcvision pctilionbclorc lllis COllrt I havc hcard Icarncd counscl for thc particsand havc gonc throughthe rccords ofthc casc Icarncd counscl for lhc pclilioncrs has subtnitlcd that sultwas filcd on 5A2007 Thc written statctncnt was lllccl on 19 l l 007 The Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 14: 45 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 Civil Revision N03583 of 2009 5 W under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was decided bythe lrial Court on 3012008 Thc ordcr passcdon the undcr Order 39 Rules l and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was in the appealand ultiinatclythe Appcllate Court decidedthe under Order 39 Rulcs 1 and 2 read with Scction 151 CPC vide order 1 dated 1332009 hc prcscnt application for amendlncnt of written llcd on 262009 The casc was at initial stageeThe 0 statelnent was want to pleadthat the registcrcdWill exccutcd by Bassi Bai CAo was 111respectof suit property lllc Iearnedtrial Court has dismissed the I on thc ground that onc witncsswas rccorded on 23A2008 and Z the defcndants could not point out anythingthat by excrcise of due diligcncetheycan takethc pleain their written statement lt is submitted I that law of aincndmcnt is very Iibcral lnore particularly irl respectof 08 amendmentof written stateincnt Thc delayisnota ground to refuse thc OO for amendinent Thc Ilonblc ApexCoun in authorityAndhra Bank Z vs ABN Amro Bank NVtnd Ors 200729ApexCourl Page 614 reme Court 9 held that comlncncement of thc trial as provided in proviso of Ordcr 6 Rule 17 CPC should bc presumed in rcspcctof Onal hcaringof the suit CXamlnatloll of witnesses filingof thc documentsand of argulnents It is furthcr sublnittedthat in authorityRaj Kumar Gurawara 6DeadIThrRs vs Mls SK Sanvagi c Covtltd and another 2008649 RCR Civill824 thc Honble Apcx Court has held that pitrial ainendments should be allowed liberally lhan the ainendments sought after commencement ofthe trial Itis furthcr subinittcd that no prejudice would Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 14: 45 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 52 Civil Revision N03583 of 2009 6 be caused to thcoppositcpartyas thc plaintiffsshall havc thc rightto file At thc stage of amcndmcnt the nlerit of thc proposed cannot bc looked into So thc praycr has bccn inade for ofrevision pctitionand lor allowingthc amcndment In rcplyto above notcd submissions Iearnedcounscl forthe 1 has supportcd the order of thc trial Court It is 0 submittcdthat onc witncss has alrcadybeen cxamincd and as such thc trial 1 hascommcnced By exercisc01duc dillgcncc thc delendantscould plead C thc will in question Mcrc lact that thc casc has been pendingbefore the I Appellate Court in appeal on an undcr Order 39 Rulcs 1 and 2 Z readwith Section 151 CPC does not make the rcvisionist cntitled to allow r theamcndment So thc praycr has bcen nladc for disinissal of thc revision I PetltlOlle 08 In order to propcrly appreciatc the facts ofthc casc the relevant underordcr 6 Rule 17CPC is rcproduccd as under Z 17 Amcndlncnt ofplcadgslc Court may at any stageof Ll thc allow cithcr party to altcr or amcnd his in such manncr and on sucll terms as inay bejust and all such amendmentsshall be madeas inay bc nccessary for the purposcof dctcrminingthe real qucslionsltl controversy bctweentheparliesl Providcd that no application for ainendment shall bc allowed after the trial has colnlncnccd unlcss thc Court conles to the conclusion lhat in spilc of duc diligcncc thc party could not havcraiscd thc matter bclore the coinmenccmcnt oftrial 99 e ee Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 14: 45 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 Civil Rcvision N05583 of 2009 7 I havc considcrcd thc rival submissions of counscl for thc parties and havc gonc through lhc rccord Thc admittcd positionOll lhc rccords IS that suit was filed on 43 007 and thc written slatcment was Iilcd by lhc dcfendanls on 191 12007 Thc applicationundcr Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was 1 Ct dccided on 3012008 and on 23A2008 slatcmcnt of onc witncss of the 0 plaintiffwas also rccordcd hc appcalagainstthc applicalionfor 3 was dccided by lhe Ieamcd Districl Judgcon 132009 The m C5 application for amcndlnentwas OIcdon 2630009 he Honblc ApexCourt I in authority Baldev Singhand Ors elc vs Munohar Singhand anrletc AIR Z 2006 Supreme Courl 283211 thc l lonblc ApcxCourt in paraNo I 7 ofthe r judgmentdiscuss about colnmcnccnlcnt of lrial Para No17 rcads as I under a5 17 lve pttrl liIilh Ihis order Mlemav also notice Ihat aO Proviso to Orcler 6 Rule 17 of Ihe CPC providesIhat Z amendinenl ofpleadings shall n01 be allowed when Ille t1ial a the Suil has alreudycommenced For tl reason wle have examined the recordx und 117dIhat in j27cltl7e trial has not yet comnlenced It cip12ecrs 79iIlIlle ieccJIdv t17alIlle 2aIIies have yet to ile their docllmentary elidel07ceiIl 117eS1til 11Olll lhe record it also appeurs Ih411the Suit was nol on Ihe llerge fconclusion asf0undbyIheIligh Courl and the Trial Court That upart cominencenlenl 017rialas used in provisoto Order 6 Rulel7 in the Code fcivil Procedure Illusl be lmdelstood In Ihe IiIniled sense as meaningthe j7nalhearingof the SUll Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 14: 45 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 Civil Rcvision N05583 of 2009 8 V4 exammaliOn Iiling and addiessi11g As noled hereinafIerparliesuleyel ltIIe 117eii documenls we do not jindany reason Io rejecltheapplication for amendmentof the Wrillen stalemenl in vlew ofprovisoto Order 6 Rlile 17 of Ihe CPC lvhich cclllferswide power and discretion Io the Courl J t 0 SoIrom thc pcrusalofthc said proposilionitis rcvcalcd that ifthe case is not fixcd Ior flnal hcaringin that casc the alnendincntshould C5 be allowcd 111e alllCtldlllcllt 111 plcading can also bc allowcd aftcr thc of trial if the partycould nol havc raised lhe mattcr bcfore Z the coinincnccmcnl ofthc trial bycxcrcising duc diligcnce Thc Honble Apcx Court in aulllorityRc KlImar GurawJaia I DeadlThrlI case 6rupralhas fiirthcr Ilcld tllat pictiial alllendillellts a5 are to be allowed libcrally than to bc soughlto bc made aftcr the r COtlllllenCClllCllt of thc trial So thc lCrlll COlllinCnccIllcnt of lal has to be Z read in consonancc with thc obscrvalion Ill paraNo 70fjudgmcntBaldev Singhand others case supra hc Icarncd trial Courl has itsclf observed thatat thctimeofallowingthc alncndincnt thc incrit ofthc aincildmcnt has not to be sccn So lll VICW of thc above circumstanccs thc trial Coull has taken thc word comnlcnccment 01 trial in a ntlrrow scnsc and not in accordanccwith obscrvation lll paraNo Baldev Singhscase SUpYCII So Ill VlCW ofthc abovc discussion thc revision pclitionstands Thc impugncd clrdcr standssct asidc and alncndlncnt of wlittcIl Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 14: 45 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 Civil Revision N03583 of 2009 9 l statemcntstandsallowcd on paytncntof Rs20001 as costs Thc rcvision pctitionstandsdisposedofaccordingly A copy of this judgmcntbc scnt to lhc trial Court for strict 1 JUDGE March 09142010 0 Sv C5 I Z I a5 C a lll Z 0m Kumar Suresh 2012.12.20 14: 45 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document