SAO No. 5 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 05 , 2010 1. SAO No. 5 of 2010 (O&M) Baljit Kaur ...... Appellant Versus Gurbax Kaur and others ...... Respondents 2. SAO No. 6 of 2010 (O&M) Baljit Kaur ...... Appellant Versus Charan Kaur and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This order shall dispose of two SAOs bearing Nos. 5 and 6 of 2010. These two appeals have been filed against similar inter-party orders whereby cases have been remanded back to the trial Court after allowing an amendment in the written statement. Facts are being taken from SAO No.5 of 2010. The appellant had filed a suit in the year 2000 for declaration that she had become co-owner of the property of Shiv Singh. The respondents relied upon Will which had been executed by Shiv Singh on SAO No. 5 of 2010 (O&M) 2 26.11.1999 which had been got registered on 28.1.1999. In the written statement, however, the date of the Will was mentioned as 28.11.99. The respondents led their entire evidence in respect of the Will dated 26.11.99 (registered on 28.11.,99). However, the trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant by discarding the Will on the plea that since the date o the Will was actually 26.11.99 while it had been mentioned as 28.11.99 in the written statement so no evidence in that regard could be read being beyond pleadings. Before the Appellate Court applications for amendment were filed stating that inadvertently the date of registration had been mentioned instead of the date of execution. Learned Lower Appellate Court allowed the applications for amendment and remanded the case back to the trial Court for fresh decision even while holding that no further evidence would be led. Learned counsel has argued that the applications having been filed at such a belated stage could not have been allowed. Learned counsel has argued that the suit remained pending for 8 long years and, therefore, applications for amendment could not have been allowed before the Appellate Court. I find that though this may be correct yet it is obvious that the mistake was inadvertent and that the respondents were relying upon the said Will. The Lower Appellate Court further held that this was not a case of withdrawal of admission and believed the explanation on behalf of the respondents that the error was inadvertent. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the exercise of discretion in allowing the applications for amendment is arbitrary or suffers from any material irregularity. It cannot be lost sight of that the entire evidence which was led by the respondents has been shut out because of this mistake. The learned SAO No. 5 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Lower Appellate Court has rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in Om Parash v. Ram Parkash and another , 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 480 and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P and others v. M/s Pioneer Builders, A.P., 2006(4) Civil Court Cases 668. In the circumstances no exception can be found with the course adopted by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, argued that the costs imposed of Rs.1000/- are manifestly and wholly inappropriate. The appellant had prosecuted the case for 8 long years and had engaged counsel in the Lower Appellate Court. I find force in this argument and consequently hold that the costs imposed would be Rs. 10,000/-. Learned counsel has further argued that apart from increase in costs it would also be in the interest of justice for the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the civil suit which has now been pending for the past 10 years. I find that this request is also reasonable. Considering the fact that no evidence is to be led and only final arguments have to be heard, I direct the trial Court to conclude the matter within two months of the next date of hearing. With these observations these appeals and the applications for stay are disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 05, 2010 sunita