C.R No. 2636 of 2007 (O&M ) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.25094 CII of 2009 and C.R No. 2636 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : October 27, 2009 Jagdish Kaur and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. Sukhwinder Kaur & others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4, 12 & 13. Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for respondent No.6. Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate for respondents No.12 & 13. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M No.25094 CII of 2009 C.M is allowed and Annexure R-1 is taken on record. C.R No.2636 of 2007 This petition has been filed against the order dated 25.4.2007 declining the application for amendment in the plaint. C.R No. 2636 of 2007 (O&M ) ::2:: The main plea taken by the trial Court is that the application has been filed at a very belated stage (at the conclusion of the trial) and that by doing so, the petitioners are seeking to withdraw an admission which would cause prejudice to the respondents. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in fact a female predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had executed a sale deed which was challenged and the said suit was partly decreed by holding that qua some land the sale would not have any effect on the rights of the reversioner who would be able to claim retransfer of the land after the death of the said female predecessor. The exact words which were used in the decree are to the following effect :- “....in the result I would accept the appeal and vary the decree of lower court to this extent that the sale shall not affect the rights of the plaintiffs except to the extent of Rs.927/-. In other respects the decree is maintained. Equitable order as to the cost of the appeal is that the party shall bear their own. Plaintiffs pleaders fee Rs.32/-”. As per the learned counsel that share of land was not liable for reversion but the remaining was liable for reversion. However, the decree was couched in negative terminology. By mistake in the instant suit, it was originally prayed as follows :- “ It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners of agricultural land measuring 64 kanals 19 marlas comprised in ............, situated in village Rajpura Tehsil C.R No. 2636 of 2007 (O&M ) ::3:: Phillaur District Jalandhar, and for mandatory injunction directing defendants No.2 to 13 to hand over vacant possession of agricultural land measuring 64 kanals 19 marlas, comprised in .........., situated in village Rajpura Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1994-95 after receiving a sum of Rs.927/-.........” Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that mention of the words “Rs.927/-” is an obvious mistake. The petitioners are agitating their rights which had been conferred upon them by the earlier decree and by the change of the amount no essential difference arises in the relief sought. Counsel for respondents have defended the order of the trial Court. As mentioned above, the two points taken by the trial Court are delay and the alleged prejudice caused by the withdrawal of an alleged admission. It is no doubt true that delay in filing an application for amendment cannot be ignored. However, while allowing the same, the effect on the suit would have to be kept in mind. Of-course, if by amendment an admission is sought to be withdrawn it would be a serious matter. The present case is not one where the admission has ever been sought to be withdrawn. A perusal of the entire plaint does reveal that the petitioners are only seeking to enforce whatever rights were granted to them by the earlier decree. There is no question of any admission having been withdrawn. Needless to say harsh and pedantic view with regard to pleadings should be avoided. C.R No. 2636 of 2007 (O&M ) ::4:: Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that now no evidence is required to be led. I put it to counsel for the respondents that if as a consequence of the amendment being allowed, they would be constrained to lead any further evidence. Learned counsel are unable to give satisfactory reply that in the eventuality of the amendment being allowed, the respondents would have to lead any further evidence. Thus, in my opinion, no material prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents since, apart from the mistake in figures, both sides were fully aware of the issues involved in the case. In the circumstances, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 25.4.2007 is set aside, and the application for amendment in the plaint is allowed. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 26.11.2009. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. October 27, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) kk JUDGE