IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1807 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 21st August, 2009 Smt. Santosh Yadav … Petitioner Versus Maruti Udyog Limited … Respondent Civil Revision No. 1808 of 2002 Urmila Yadav … Petitioner Versus Maruti Udyog Limited … Respondent Civil Revision No. 1809 of 2002 Leelu Ram … Petitioner Versus Maruti Udyog Limited … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Civil Misc. No. 18085-CII of 2009 in Civil Revision No. 1807 of 2002 Application is allowed and the judgment dated 17th October, 2000 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurgaon is taken on record. Civil Revision No. 1807-09 of 2002 Civil Revisions No.1807-09 of 2002 By this common order, Civil Revision No.1807 of 2002, Civil Revision No.1808 of 2002 and Civil Revision No.1809 of 2002 shall be decided. There is no dispute that the facts arising out of all the three revision petitions are identical and for facility, reference can be made to the facts pertaining to Civil Revision No. 1807 of 2002 instituted by Smt.Santosh Yadav. Present revision petition has been filed praying that the impugned order dated 18th March, 2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby, being appellate Court, he had declined to allow amendment of the plaint, be set aside. Petitioner Smt. Santosh Yadav filed a suit for mandatory injunction against Maruti Udyog Limited through its Chairman that as per the agreement, which took place between the defendant Maruti Udyog Limited and the inhabitants of the village, plaintiff be provided with employment. Ancestral land of the petitioners was situated in village Molahera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The said land was acquired for setting up a Factory for manufacture of car by the defendant Maruti Udyog Limited. It is stated that a Sangharsh Samiti (agitation committee) headed by Rao Gajraj Singh was formed. A long drawn agitation ensued and in presence of Mr. Naresh Gulati, IAS, the then Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon and Mr. Sharad Kumar, IPS, the then Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, the defendant Maruti Udyog Limited agreed in principle that eligible adult of each of the family, whose land has been acquired, will be absorbed as an employee by the defendant Company. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon on 17th October, 2000. The primary reason given by the trial Court was that the petitioner had 2 Civil Revision No. 1807-09 of 2002 failed to prove the agreement dated 9th July, 1986. To fortify his submission, plaintiff relied upon the judgment and decree passed in another suit by Ms.Aaradhana Sawhney, the then Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurgaon. The said suit for mandatory injunction was decreed. The appeal filed by Maruti Udyog Limited was also dismissed. The second appeal filed was also dismissed and the order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It later dawned upon the plaintiff petitioner that purported agreement was drawn on 14th July, 1986 and instead of agreement, the parties to the agreement had given the name to same as ‘draft of minutes of meeting’ held on 14th July, 1986. As per these minutes of the meeting, family member of the persons, whose land was acquired, was to be considered for absorption in the employment of the defendant Company. It is in this context that before the appellate Court, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC on 26th February, 2002 seeking permission to amend the plaint of a suit to correct the date of agreement from 9th July, 1986 to 14th July, 1986. It was stated that due to typographical mistake in the suit, the date of agreement has been mentioned as 9th July, 1986 instead of 14th July, 1986. This application was contested by the defendant Company and an objection was taken that this amounts to filling up the lacuna and the prayer for amendment of the suit was not bonafide. It was further stated that there is no agreement dated 14th July, 1986, but it carries the nomenclature of ‘draft of minutes of meeting’. It was further stated that the plaintiff remained silent and was not diligent to prove the alleged agreement. All these arguments taken before the appellate Court have been further substantiated by Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, counsel appearing for the respondent, by saying that no original of the draft of minutes was produced and it was only marked as Mark-B in the suit and there being no 3 Civil Revision No. 1807-09 of 2002 document, no reliance can be placed upon the draft of minutes and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff petitioner has to fail, as it is not based on any document. He further states that Mark-B, being inadmissible, no reliance can be placed upon the same. I have perused the copy of the judgment passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, whereby civil suit preferred by the plaintiff petitioner was dismissed. I have also gone through the impugned order. A perusal of both the orders reveal that an agreement was arrived at between the inhabitants, whose land was acquired and the defendant Company, in presence of the District Administration. The document states that a meeting was held under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner and R.C. Bhargav, Managing Director of Maruti Udyog Limited was also present. It is for the Court to determine whether this draft of minutes can be termed as agreement or not ? Whether from the letter and spirit, the draft of minutes can be considered as an agreement or not ? Furthermore, it is clear that on 14th July, 1986, Sangharsh Samiti had made an arrangement for absorption of persons, whose land was acquired, in the employment of the defendant Company. Due to typographical error or lack of perception in the plaint, instead of draft of minutes of meting, the plaintiff has averred it as the agreement dated 9th of July, 1986 instead of 14th July, 1986. A perusal of the trial Court judgment shows that the original of this document was relied, and a suit of another person, who was similarly situated, was decreed and it was upheld up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. From the perusal of the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon it is also evident that this document was also relied in other suits titled ‘Partap Singh v. Maruti Udyog Limited’ and ‘Virender Singh v. Maruti Udyog Limited’. Once this amendment is allowed and pleading comes on the case file that the agreement/ draft of minutes of 4 Civil Revision No. 1807-09 of 2002 meeting was arrived on 14th July, 1986, instead of agreement dated 9th July, 1986, then the plaintiff can pray and lead additional evidence to prove this assertion. Needless to say, he can requisition the record from other suits and by way of secondary evidence, prove the document dated 14th July, 1986, the draft of minutes of meeting. The defendant Company cannot, on technicalities, deny existence of draft of minutes recorded in a meeting held by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon on 14th July, 1986, especially when that document has been upheld in suit filed by co-villagers up to the Hon’ble Apex Court. In view of this, present revision petitions are allowed. The Additional District Judge shall allow the amendment to be made by the petitioners and shall proceed with the case thereafter in accordance with the provisions of law. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon on 5th September, 2009. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 21, 2009 rps 5