C.R.No.6138 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6138 of 2009. Decided on: October 24, 2009. Smt.Murti and another .. Petitioners VERSUS Smt.Sarbai and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Jagat Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Defendants-petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.04.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Bhiwani, allowing the application for amendment of the plaint on the basis of subsequent event which had occurred during pendency of the case. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for declaration against the defendants-petitioners claiming that they along with defendants being descendent of Gopal are entitled to be declared as owner of the property being coparceners of joint Hindu Family. During pendency of the case, a decree had been obtained by defendants . . . 1 C.R.No.6138 of 2009 on 29.09.2008, showing the plaintiff-respondent having died whereas the plaintiff Sarbari is alleged to be alive. By way of impugned order, the plaintiff-respondent has been permitted to incorporate a plea that the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2008, pertaining to the same property is bad in law. Counsel for the defendants-petitioners has argued that the defendants had filed suit prior to the suit filed by the plaintiff and that General Public was impleaded as party. The plaintiff had notice about the pendency of said proceedings but despite the said fact the plaintiff failed to appear and contest the suit filed by the defendants which was decreed on 29.09.2008, as such, the principle of res judicata would bar the plaintiff-respondent to challenge the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2008. He has also argued that the plaintiff has got an alternative remedy to get the judgment and decree, sought to be incorporated, by way of amendment, set aside or by filing an application before the Court which passed the decree. He could also have filed an appeal and by impugned order, the rights of the defendants have been seriously prejudiced. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, at length. Since the subject matter of the suit filed by the plaintiff is same which is the subject matter of the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2008, the rights of the parties are to be finally determined by judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. All the legal pleas of res judicata etc., which the defendants want to take . . . 2 C.R.No.6138 of 2009 can be raised by filing amended written statement. No serious prejudice seems to have been caused to the defendants. Besides this, I am of the considered opinion that multiplicity of litigation will be avoided by permitting the amendment of the plaint. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 24, 2009. rka . . . 3