Civil Revision No.4638 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4638 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.08.2011 Diwan Chand Taneja and others .....Petitioners Versus Navinta Taneja and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J .(Oral) Hoping for hope, Navinta Taneja, unfortunate widow of late Pawan Taneja and her minor son Yajat-respondents-plaintiffs (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit (Annexure P-1), as an indigent person, against Diwan Chand Taneja, Krishana Taneja-perents-in-law, Pardeep Taneja and Rakesh Taneja-brothers-in- law-petitioners (for short “the defendants”) for recovery of Rs.5,40,000/- as maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- P.M. for the last 3 years, future maintenance and to create a charge against the properties of her husband known as Pawan Floor Mill, Model Town Road, Milk Bar Chowk, Near Dera Sat Kartar, Jalandhar, inter alia pleading that her husband died on 20.07.2002 and the defendants have lodged a false complaint against her, her father and brother etc. under Section 306 IPC. During the course of investigation, they were found innocent by the police and accordingly FIR/case against them was cancelled. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events of cruelty, torture and non-maintenance by the defendants, the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of amount of maintenance against the defendants, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs and filed their written statement (Annexure P2), denying all the allegations contained in the plaint Civil Revision No.4638 of 2011 -2- and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. During the course of pendency of the suit , the defendants moved an application (Annexure P-3) for amendment of the written-statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The trial Court dismissed the same, by virtue of impugned order dated 16.07.2011 (Annexure P-5). 5. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the petitioner- defendants preferred the instant revision petition. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition. 7. As is evident from the the record that Navinta Taneja-plaintiff No.1 is widow of late Pawan Taneja s/o Dewan Chand Taneja-defendant No-1 and her minor son-plaintiff No.2 filed the suit for recovery of amount of maintenance and to create charge on the property in question of her husband, in the manner described here-in-before. 8. Now, by way of proposed amendment, the defendants intends to take a contradictory plea that the property in question was never owned by Pawan Taneja (deceased-husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2) and as such, the charge can not be created against the property, which was stated to be self acquired property of Dewan Chand Taneja-defendant No.1. 9. It can not possibly be disputed that the facts, which are now sought to be introduced by the defendants in the written-statement (Annexure P2), were well within their knowledge, much prior to its filing. Why defendant No.1 has not taken this plea in the original written-statement (Annexure P-2), remains an unfolded mystery. 10. The story of the defendants that no charge could be created on the property in question, which was stated to be self acquired by defendant No.1 appears to be after thought, in order to deprive the plaintiffs from legitimate right Civil Revision No.4638 of 2011 -3- of maintenance and to delay the disposal of the suit. Therefore, to me, the trial Court has rightly negatived the claim of the defendants in this respect. 11. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has also recorded the valid reasons in dismissing the application (Annexure P3) filed by the petitioner-defendants, by way of impugned order (Annexure P5). Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so as to take a contrary view by this Court, than that of the well reasoned decision already arrived at by the trial Court. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner-defendants is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the merits of the case as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition. 02.08.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE