CR No. 7564 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7564 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.12.2011 Karam Kaur & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Skattar Raj & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.K.S.Dadwal,, Advocate, for the petitioners. --- A.N.Jindal, J. This petition has arisen out of the order dated 9.11.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mukerian, allowing application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. Plaintiff/respondent (herein referred as the “plaintiff”) had filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be joint owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of registered Will executed by Charu Ram alias Chura and had also challenged the mutation No.1940, sanctioned in favour of the petitioners/defendants. The plaintiff had also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from denying the title of the plaintiff and had also sought CR No. 7564 of 2011 2 relief of permanent injunction. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has moved an application for amendment of the plaint stating that in case he is not proved to be in possession, then in the alternative he may be granted relief of possession. Besides, he has also sought amendment by way of rectification of a clerical mistake in the heading of the plaint regarding year of the Will which has inadvertently been mentioned as 1998 in stead of year 1983. The application was opposed. However, trial court finding that mistake with regard to year of the Will is a matter of record and the amendment with regard to the relief of possession is claimed in the alternative, therefore, the same could be allowed, and it allowed the amendments sought for subject to payment of Rs.1500/- as costs. Arguments heard. As regards amendment with regard to year of Will, the plaintiff has set up his claim regarding title and on the basis of Will dated 30.8.1983 but it appears that due to clerical mistake the year '1998' appears to have been mentioned in the heading of the plaint. Therefore, such clerical mistake could be allowed even at the cost of delay. Coming to the alternative plea of possession, though the plaintiff had initially set up the plea that he is owner in joint possession of the suit land but the defendants have set up the plea that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, therefore, CR No. 7564 of 2011 3 without claiming any further issues; claiming to lead further evidence and in an anxiety that in case he is not held to be in possession, then he could be granted relief of possession. It is well settled by now that even court while deciding the case reaches conclusion that party is not in possession, then it could be granted relief of possession and in that situation, the court can provide opportunity to the plaintiff/party to seek an amendment by claiming possession, or even otherwise, the court can grant any appropriate relief which is made out from the evidence as led by the parties. Petty amendments which were, otherwise permissible, under law when the rights of the defendants/petitioners were not going to be prejudiced by grant of such amendment; no further issues are claimed and the plaintiff has not sought to lead further evidence; the courts, while keeping in mind that substantial justice is to be imparted to the parties and multiplicity of the litigation could be avoided, should be liberal in granting such amendments. Even otherwise, when the conscience of the court is satisfied that the amendment sought for is genuine; essential for just decision of the case; do not further delay the adjudication of the controversy between the parties; the application has not been filed with mala fide design; do not change the nature of the suit and invite the addition of the parties and do not need further explanation from the adversary, then the court should be liberal in such cases to allow the petition. It is also interesting that petty amendments which are allowed by the appellate court which are essential for just decision of CR No. 7564 of 2011 4 the case, and if these orders are challenged before the High Court, it results into superfluous litigation being flooded and the court goes into arrears of litigation. Actually, the court at the very threshold has to examine the case of the party as a whole, provide opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and then to advance the substantial justice by rising above the hyper-technicalities. Since this revision petition has been filed on flimsy grounds designedly with a view to further prolong the case, therefore, it would not be inappropriate if heavy costs are imposed upon them. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case within 3 months positively. (A.N.Jindal) 7.12.2011 Judge rp