C.R.No.667 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.667 of 2009 Date of order: 30.05.2009 Santosh Mehta ….Petitioner Versus Surinder Kumar Chhibber and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay S Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the present revision petition, petitioner-plaintiff has prayed for setting aside order dated 6.11.2008 (Annexure P.5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Yamuna Nagar whereby an application filed by him for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for partition by metes and bounds restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating the suit property on 20.7.2000. In the said suit, plaintiff sought a declaration that compromise dated 6.3.2000 is not binding since it was obtained by fraud and mis-representation and consequently a permanent injunction has been sought for restraining defendant-respondent No.1 from alienating the suit property. The said suit property was inherited by the parties from their father late Krishan Lal Chhibber. Defendant-respondent No.1 by not disclosing that plaintiff-petitioner was also an heir, got the said property transferred in his name alone. Respondent-defendant No.1 filed written statement stating that the present suit is not maintainable. It was stated in the written statement that respondent-defendant No.1 purchased plot No.73 measuring 253 sq C.R.No.667 of 2009 #2# yards from the Improvement Trust in the year 1991 and the sale deed of this property was also executed in his favour on 22.4.1991 by the Improvement Trust much later after the death of the father of answering defendant and the plaintiff in the year 1986. Thereafter, answering defendant raised construction of his house after taking non-refundable advance from his G.P. Fund. So far as property No.II as mentioned in the plaint is concerned, it was stated that the answering defendant and his father from their joint funds purchased a plot No.17 (1342-A), situated at Shiv Puri-A, Yamuna Nagar in 1977 and total expenses of the construction on the said plot was made by the answering defendant. It was further stated in the written statement filed by defendant No.1 that the plaintiff-petitioner entered into a compromise with the answering defendant on 6.3.2000 and as per compromise Ex.CX, plaintiff had no concern with property in dispute. This compromise was filed in the court of learned CJ (JD), Jagadhri, where the statement of the plaintiff was also recorded. As per the said compromise Ex.CX, answering defendant had to pay Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff-petitioner was at liberty to file suit for recovery. After the compromise arrived in that suit, plaintiff received Rs.17,000/- from I.S.G.E.C and in this way, only an amount of Rs.33,000/- remained due. It was stated that the answering defendant many times approached the plaintiff with request to receive the balance amount of Rs.33000/- but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. It was further stated in the written statement that plaintiff- petitioner had earlier filed a suit for declaration in respect of the same properties. The said suit was withdrawn on account of the said compromise dated 6.3.2000. It was further stated that the plaintiff-petitioner is real sister C.R.No.667 of 2009 #3# of answering defendant, who was married in the year 1974 and since then she is residing at her in-law house with her husband and children separately and she has no concern right, title or interest with the property in dispute. On the basis of pleadings, the issues were framed. Parties led their evidence and when the case was fixed for rebuttal arguments, an application (Annexure P.5) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved by the petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. It is stated that the petitioner-plaintiff could not plead all the instances of fraud and misrepresentation while filing the original suit, present application seeking to include paragraph 7-A and 7-B and an amendment in the prayer clause was made. Upon notice, reply Annexure P.5 to the said application was filed by the respondents-defendants. In the reply to the said application, respondent No.1 has taken up the plea that the applicant-plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present application as the same was filed after a lapse of 8 years and will also change the entire nature of the case as by amendment in the prayer clause, a declaration was also sought. After hearing the counsel for the parties, application has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Yamuna Nagar vide the impugned order. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner restricts his prayer to only para No.7-A to be added in the plaint to the effect that the alleged compromise dated 6.3.2000 is absolutely wrong, illegal and void. He argues that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the amendment is necessary for final decision of the controversy in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned C.R.No.667 of 2009 #4# order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the plaintiff-petitioner has sought only some particulars of the fraud and coercion practised by defendant-respondent No.1 to be added in the plaint. No further evidence is needed to be led in support of this averment and no prejudice would be caused to defendant-respondent No.1. It is argued that the said amendment would not change the nature of the suit. In support, he cites a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Vidyabai & Ors v. Padmalatha and Another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that no amendment can be allowed, at this stage even qua contents of para 7-A as those alleged instances though false and not admitted were in her knowledge throughout since the institution of the suit and at this belated stage cannot be permitted to be raised. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that a compromise dated 6.3.2000 was effected between the plaintiff and defendant-respondent No.1 vide which defendant-respondent No.1 had undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on or before 6.6.2000. It is also not in dispute that earlier a civil suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on account of the said compromise. Petitioner-plaintiff is the real sister of respondent-defendant No.1. She should have clarified about the reasons of not able to plead with regard to the ingredients/instances of fraud and misrepresentation at the time of filing suit on 20.7.2000 when all the facts now sought to be introduced by para 7-A were in her knowledge. A bare reading of contents of para 7-A makes it clear that facts were in her C.R.No.667 of 2009 #5# knowledge as these relate to instances involving the petitioner-plaintiff. Present application has been made at the time of rebuttal arguments after a lapse of almost 8 years and no explicit reason has been given for filing the application at such a belated stage. Amendment now sought by the petitioner cannot be allowed at this stage and if the same is allowed, it will amount to de novo trial and thus causing serious prejudice to the defendants. I do not find any illegality or perversity to interfere with the orders passed by the learned trial Court. Dismissed. May , 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE