Civil Revision No.5536 of 2003(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5536 of 2003(O&M) Date of Decision 28.10.2009 Jagtar Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Jaswinder Kaur and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Mohar and Mr.Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Rawat, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.10.2003, passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana dismissing an application of the petitioner-defendant (herein referred as 'the defendant') for amendment of the written statement. Factual background of the case is that Nahar Singh @ Amar Singh died on 09.08.1987, leaving behind two sons and five daughters, as such the mutation sanctioned by the Revenue Authority was challenged by filing a suit by the respondents-plaintiffs (herein referred as 'the plaintiffs') on 03.04.1997 wherein the written statement was filed on 22.08.1997 claiming that the property was inherited by six legal heirs because Jaswant Kaur wife of Nahar Singh had died intestate. At the time of filing of written statement, the property was not claimed to be joint Hindu Family property. The suit was decreed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala vide order dated 23.01.2003. The appeal against which was filed and is pending before Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. During the pendency of the appeal i.e. after about 7 years of the filing of the written statement, defendants came with the application for amendment in the written statement, stating that the Civil Revision No.5536 of 2003(O&M) 2 property is joint Hindu Family property and the same could be inherited by him and the other heirs of Nahar Singh by way of survivorship. The application was dismissed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Nahar Singh died on 09.08.1987. Even while filing the written statement, defendant never stated that the plaintiffs could not succeed by way of succession on account of the fact of the property being coparcenary. Rather, he admitted in para No.4 of the written statement that the plaintiffs and the defendant are legal heirs of the deceased. However, on account of the death of Jaswant Kaur wife of Nahar Singh, who died intestate, the defendant could inherit. Nothing has been brought on record in order to show that despite due diligence the defendant never came to know about the property being coparcenary. Prima facie no document has been brought on record in order to convince the mind of the Appellate Court that the property was inherited by Nahar Singh from his forefather by way of natural succession. Initially, the plaintiffs raised the claim stating that the property was owned by Nahar Singh whereas the defendant while accepting the said plea, never took the plea with regard to coparcenary. Without refuting the arguments and the law relating to the amendment of the pleadings at any stage, the Court should be liberal in its approach while allowing the announcement where it is convinced that despite due diligence, the amendment sought to be introduced could not be claimed and it was essential for just decision of the case or any other substantiated cause. But in this case, the defendant appear to be in the knowledge of all the pleas and about the revenue records but he intentionally did not set up such a plea and no document has been brought on record to convince the mind of this Court that actually property was received by Nahar Singh from his forefathers by way of natural succession. Thus, prima facie the plea sought, if allowed, could hardly be established. The law regarding the amendment at the appellate stage or at other higher level is stricter for the following reasons:- 1. Both the parties throw their cards, the pleas are raised and controverted. 2. A lot of time is spent in proving those pleas or reputing the same by collecting the same and lateron such pleas are manipulated to disturb the findings delivered by the Courts Civil Revision No.5536 of 2003(O&M) 3 below as such the announcement of pleadings at the appellate stage, unless it really is essential to decide the issue, it could not come to the notice of the party despite due diligence and apparently it was necessary for just and substantial cause, should be discouraged. 3. Normally, the amendments are manufactured at the appellate stage, to gain time and to prolong the litigation. In the present case, nothing has been shown or put up before me by the defendant for allowing this amendment. Even otherwise, such an amendment having introduced at a belated stage, when the matter has been adjudicated on merits and the appeal is pending for 7 years, should not be allowed. The allowing of such amendment would amount to reopening of the case and it may take further 10 years for disposal of the same. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 28.10.2009 mamta-II