C.R.No.4358 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4358 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.10.2011 Smt. Pushpa Devi ...Petitioner Versus Smt.Sarojini Verma and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondents. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.6.2010 passed by the trial court whereby an application filed for deletion of amendment made in the plaint had been rejected. 2. Briefly, the facts may be noticed. Plaintiffs Smt.Sarojini etc. filed a suit for declaration that they were exclusive owners in possession in equal shares of the suit land measuring 17 kanals 12 marlas with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant-petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi from alienating/transferring the suit land in any manner in favour of any other person. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. Subsequently, application for amendment of the plaint and for impelading Prithi Singh as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) was filed. Prayer for amendment was qua the area of the land measuring 15 1 C.R.No.4358 of 2010 kanals 8 marlas instead of 17 kanals 12 marlas. Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he had no objection for acceptance of the claim with respect to partition of land. The application was disposed of by the trial Court vide order dated 26.11.2009 allowing the amendment to the limited extent. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed amended plaint in which not only amendment which was allowed was incorporated but a new para No.8(a) as parentage in title was also changed. The petitioner filed an application for directing the plaintiffs to delete the amendment illegally made in the plaint without the permission of the Court. Vide impugned order dated 9.6.2010, the application was rejected holding that the amendment so added was consequential to the amendment allowed. Hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. 4. The trial Court vide order dated 26.11.2009 allowed the application filed by the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint on the ground that a decree for pre-emption regarding land measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas came to the notice of the plaintiffs subsequent to the filing of the suit and thereafter the area in dispute had to be decreased from 17 kanals 12 marlas to 15 kanals 8 marlas. After the amendment, the plaintiff filed the amended plaint in which para 8 (a) had been incorporated which is to the following effect:- “8(a) That Pirthi Singh deceased filed a Civil Suit No.438 on 31.8.1996 for possession by way of pre- emption claiming his superior right of pre-emption on 2 C.R.No.4358 of 2010 land measuring 2K-4M comprised in Killa No.4/1 out of total suit land measuring 17K-12M which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.1970. So the legal heirs of Shri Pirthi Singh are owners in possession of land measuring 2K-4M and plaintiffs are owners in possession of land measuring 15K-8M out of the land purchased by Sh.Hem Raj vide sale deed dated 26.7.1967.” 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the introduction of the aforesaid para in the plaint. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had only allowed the area of the land to be reduced from 17 kanals 12 marlas to 15 kanals 8 marlas and incorporation of the aforesaid para in the plaint was contrary to the same. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the trial Court. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions, I do not find any merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents have only incorporated the facts relating to decreasing the area of suit land from 17 kanals 12 marlas to 15 kanals 8 marlas and also correcting the addresses and parentage of defendants No.2 to 6 which was allowed vide order dated 9.10.2003. The trial Court while rejecting the application of the defendant-petitioner had noticed as under:- “7. After hearing the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the case file very carefully, it is noticed that the application for amendment of plaint filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.2009 after 3 C.R.No.4358 of 2010 recording the statement of learned counsel for both the parties. The main contention of learned counsel for applicant-defendant No.1 is that the respondents- plaintiffs have made unauthorized and illegal amendment in the plaint without the permission of the Court. This contention is devoid of merit because the respondents- plaintiffs have decreased the area of suit land from 17 kanal 12 marlas to 15 kanal 8 marla in the relief clause and has also added para No. 8(a) in the plaint in order to cite the specific reason for decreasing the area of suit land from 17 kanal 12 marla to 15 kanal 8 marla. The amendment made in the plaint by the respondents- plaintiffs is according to order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the court of Shri Hem Raj Verma, learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) in which the respondents- plaintiffs were allowed to suitably amend their plaint as well as relief prayer for decreasing the area of the suit land from 17 kanal 12 marla to 15 kanal 8 marla. The insertion of para No.8 (a) in the plaint was necessary for explaining the reason for decreasing the area of the suit land from 17 kanal 12 marla to 15 kanal 9 marla. Therefore, the amendment made by the plaintiffs is not unauthorized and falls within the ambit of suitable amendment as per order dated 26.11.2009. 8. That next contention of learned counsel for applicant- defendant No.1 is that the respondents-plaintiffs have changed the addresses and parentage of defendants No.2 to 6 without permission of the Court. This contention is also devoid of merit because the respondents-plaintiffs were allowed to correct the addresses and parentage of defendants No.2 to 6 vide order dated 9.10.2003. The amended title was also filed on that date showing the changed addresses and parentage of defendants No.2 to 6. The applicant-defendant No.1 never raised any objection to the amended title filed on 9.10.2003 and has 4 C.R.No.4358 of 2010 raised the objection in this regard in the present application after a gap of seven years.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show as to how any prejudice had been caused to the defendant-petitioner by incorporating the aforesaid para which was in consonance with the amendment sought by the respondents. 10. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. October 12, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ ` Judge 5