Civil Revision No.6198 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6198 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.09.2010 Som Nath ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the learned trial Court vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint, was ordered to be dismissed. The suit was filed in the year 2002 and for eight years, the plaintiff/petitioner did not lead any evidence. The learned trial Court dismissed the application for amendment by recording, that the suit was filed on 3.4.2002 seeking mandatory injunction as also consequential relief of permanent injunction by pleading therein, that the plaintiff/petitioner was in possession of the property in dispute. In the year 1967 one Layak Ram Saini had threatened the plaintiff/petitioner to dispossess from the property, on the plea that he had unauthorisedly occupied it. The plaintiff/petitioner, further claimed, that he had reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, and on Civil Revision No.6198 of 2010 (O&M) -2- inquiry it was held, that the property was to be declared as evacuee property, and was to be sold to the plaintiff/petitioner being oustee from West Pakistan. The pleaded case of the plaintiff/petitioner further was, that recommendations were also made by the Custodian Department for sale of the property to the petitioner and on the directions of the Department, the plaintiff/petitioner had deposited rent of `70/- (Rupees seventy only). The plaintiff/petitioner claimed that the property was thereafter allotted to him by showing him as tenant, and since then he was in possession of the property. The case of the plaintiff/petitioner further was, that he had applied to the Custodian Department for transfer of the property to the plaintiff/petitioner, as the property was yet to be declared as evacuee property. The case of the plaintiff/petitioner was also, that though the price of the land was assessed, but he was not allowed to deposit the price of the land. The plaintiff/petitioner, therefore, sought relief of mandatory injunction, directing the Department to accept the application for transfer of the property, in the name of the plaintiff/petitioner. On filing of the written statement, issues were framed. The plaintiff/petitioner thereafter availed number of opportunities, but before conclusion of the evidence, an application was moved to amend the plaint, wherein altogether new stand was sought to be taken, that the respondents were not the owners of the property, as it was left by the Muslims and the property was yet to be declared as evacuee property. The plaintiff/petitioner, thus, challenged the title of the State Civil Revision No.6198 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of Haryana, from whom he was seeking the relief of mandatory injunction for transfer of the property to the petitioner. The learned trial Court rejected the application firstly on the ground, that this application was not bona fide, and that it was an attempt to delay the proceedings, as the plaintiff/petitioner had failed to conclude the evidence for last eight years. The learned trial Court also held, that by way of amendment, the plaintiff/petitioner wanted to change the cause of action, which was not permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the plea, that the amendment sought was necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case, and the facts to be pleaded were those, which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff/petitioner after the filing of the plaint, from the proceedings pending before the revenue authorities, for declaration of the property as evacuee property. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 462(1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down, that exercise of jurisdiction of the learned trial Court in allowing the amendment could not have been interfered by the High Court, in facts and circumstances of that case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kehar Singh Vs. Balraj Singh, 1991(2) PLR 616, wherein this Court laid down, that it is open to the parties to show that admission was wrong by way of amending the plaint. Civil Revision No.6198 of 2010 (O&M) -4- These judgments do not help the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner is not withdrawing the admission, but, in fact, wanted to change the cause of action, to set up new case. It is well settled law, that the plaintiff/petitioner cannot set up a new cause of action by invoking the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order passed by the learned trial Court, being in consonance with the settled law, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 29, 2010 R.S.