Civil Revision No. 910 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 910 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.02.2010 Jatinder Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus Ajit Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Raj Kumar Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 23.11.2009, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, vide which the application moved by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint, has been declined. The plaintiff/petitioners filed a suit for declaration and possession about 15 years back. When the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence, application was moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of para No.5 of the plaint, claiming to give further particulars in the pleadings already made. The existing para No.5 of the plaint reads as under: - “That the suit land was HUF property in the hand of Rajinder Singh, now deceased, the same was ancestral qua Rajinder Singh being devolved by succession on the death of his father Assa Singh as a matter of fact, the suit land was part of Jagirdar in the hand of Rajinder Singh.” Civil Revision No. 910 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Para 5 of the plaint was sought to be amended by way of following para: - “That the plaintiffs are Hindu Jat Sikh and pattidar jagirdar of village Dadlu and the land in question form part of their Jagir Estate which was granted by Govt. i.e. the then British Govt. to the ancestors of the plaintiffs when they were reduced to the status of Jagirdar in or around the year 1849, hence the land in question is Jagirdar Land which was in the hand of late Shri Rajinder Singh and this Jagir Estate Grant is subject to the terms and conditions of the grantor i.e. Govt.” The application was contested, on the ground that the application was filed to delay the proceedings, as they case was very old. Plea was also taken, that the amendment is not permissible at a belated stage. The learned trial Court accepted the contention of respondents and dismissed the application by recording as under: - “After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and the case law referred to by learned counsel for both the parties, it is observed that the present suit was filed seeking relief of declaration and possession as consequential relief of the land in question. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the defendants also argued that 20 sale deeds have been challenged in the present case and these are 20 civil suits. The present application for amendment has been moved by plaintiff on 18.8.2009 i.e. after 15 years when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence. The facts which the plaintiffs want to bring on record are also part of the pleadings in some of the paragraphs and the present application has been moved Civil Revision No. 910 of 2010 (O&M) -3- only to delay the proceedings by the plaintiff when the case has become very old and no ground is made out for allowing the amendment as desired by the plaintiffs as there is no new facts which has come to knowledge of plaintiffs at this later stage, rather the plaintiffs only want to explain their position and thereby may also like to have more evidence recorded on the ground that the amendment has been allowed. Plaintiffs have closed their evidence on 2.6.1999, but no where the plaintiffs have tried to improve their pleadings and at this later stage the amendment cannot be allowed in the plaint and hence the application is rejected.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners challenged the order on the ground that the petitioners by way of amendment, merely wanted to explain the pleadings already made and no additional evidence was to be led. The learned Court, therefore, was not justified in rejecting the application merely on the ground, that the application was belated or was to delay the proceedings. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Jai Singh Vs. Man Singh and others, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 120, wherein the plea of fraud taken was allowed to be elaborated by pleading further facts in the written statement, as the amendment sought was not to introduce any new case. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Gian Parkash Sood Vs. M/s Brij Lal Tilak Raj and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 752, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down, that delay in seeking amendment is not a ground to refuse the relief to the petitioner, as the respondents could be compensated with costs. Civil Revision No. 910 of 2010 (O&M) -4- The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, was that this Court can impose costs and grant permission to amend the plaint. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that delay in this case had occurred due to the fact that revision was pending in this Court, which delayed the trial of the suit. The petitioners could not be held responsible for the delay. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Peepee Publisher and Distributors (P) Ltd. Vs. Dr. Neena Khanna & Anr., 2009(3) Civil Court Cases 771, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to lay down, that the Court should be liberal in the matter of allowing amendment unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to other side, as the Courts are to decide rights of the parties and not to punish them for the mistakes made in the conduct of their cases. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Sarammal Vs. Dilshad Begum, 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 308, wherein the amendment of the plaint was allowed after 16 years by imposing costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as no new case was set up by way of amendment. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be necessary to note, that in the garb of explanation an attempt is made to change the nature of the suit. In the plaint, originally filed, the plea taken was, that the suit land was HUF property in the hands of Rajinder Singh which was ancestral in his hands. A passing reference was made that the suit land was part of Civil Revision No. 910 of 2010 (O&M) -5- Jagirdari in the hands of Rajinder Singh. By way of amendment, the nature of the suit is sought to be changed to plead that the property was governed by the terms and conditions of the grant by the Government. In this view of the matter, it could not be said that the case was merely to correct the defective pleadings as contended, nor the plea of the petitioners that no evidence is to be led, can be accepted. The petitioners, in the event of amendment being allowed, were required to prove the grant as well as the conditions, in absence of which, the pleading would be immaterial. The amendment after 15 years of filing of the suit would, therefore, certainly cause prejudice to the defendant/respondents. It cannot be disputed, that the Courts have to take liberal approach in allowing amendment of the pleadings, but at the same time all application for amendment cannot be allowed on mere asking. Though amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable to the present case, as the suit was filed prior to the amendment, but still it has to be seen that the legislature intended that no amendment after the commencement of trial should be permitted with regard to the facts, which were within the knowledge of the parties at the time of filing of the pleadings or could be found out with due diligence. It cannot be said that the petitioners could not know about the pleadings for a period of 15 years. It is only when the parties had led evidence and the case of the defendants was disclosed, that an application for amendment was made to amend the plaint at the stage of rebuttal evidence. The learned trial Court, therefore, was justified in holding that Civil Revision No. 910 of 2010 (O&M) -6- the amendment cannot be said to be bona fide, but was an attempt to delay the proceedings of the suit, which was already delayed. The proposition of law laid down in the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, cannot be disputed, but the judgments relied upon by the petitioners have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 11, 2010 R.S.