Civil Revision No. 3049 of 1999 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3049 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.11.2010 Mukhtiar Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus Ram Lal through LRs and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri Ravish Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The defendants are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 17.2.1999, whereby an application for amendment of the written statement filed in appeal was declined. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership over the suit property on the basis of the order dated 30.7.1984 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Moga, in Civil Revision No. 3049 of 1999 (O&M) (2) respect of the partition of the joint land. Such suit was filed on 4.12.1992. The defendants in their original written statement asserted that the plaintiffs are not owners of the suit land as they have sold their entire share in the suit land and that the defendants have never been impleaded in the partition proceedings. Therefore, the order of the Assistant Collector, is not binding on the defendants. The defendants asserted themselves to be bona-fide purchasers for valuable consideration having purchased 18 kanals 4 marlas of the land of the plaintiffs and Sheelawati vide sale deed dated 10.6.1980. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants filed an appeal. Subsequent, an application was filed for amendment of the written statement, inter-alia, to assert that the partition application is regarding different khewat having different co-sharers and having different shares, therefore, the partition application cannot be filed. It was alleged that such amendment is explanatory in nature and will not change the basic character and defence of the defendants. Such application has been declined by the learned first Appellate Court for the reason that the application is to delay the proceedings. It also noticed that an application has also been filed for summoning the partition proceedings. The amendment has been opposed for the reason that the defendants wishes to fill up the lacunae in the defence evidence, which could not be led before the learned trial Court. The revision petition came up for hearing before this Court on 12.7.1999, when the passing of the final order was stayed. It is the said order, which has remained in operation for the last 11 years. The defendants in the original written statement filed, has Civil Revision No. 3049 of 1999 (O&M) (3) categorically denied that the partition proceedings are binding upon them, as they were not party. By virtue of the amendment, the defendants want to add additional fact in respect of the partition having been sought of different khewat numbers, different co-sharers and different shares. The said fact would be relevant for deciding of the controversy between the parties. The reasoning given by the learned first Appellate Court that the defendants want to delay the proceedings is in fact not tenable, in as much as for the last 11 years, the matter is pending before this Court and the proceedings could not have been concluded in short span of time, had the amendment been allowed by the learned first Appellate Court. In view of the said fact, the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 17.2.1999 is set aside. The defendant- petitioners are permitted to amend the written statement as sought for. However, such amendment is allowed subject to the following conditions:- i) That the petitioners shall be allowed only one opportunity to lead evidence, which shall be recorded by the learned first Appellate Court itself. ii) That the defendants may take assistance of the Court to secure the presence of any witness but non-appearance of the witness(es) on any ground, whatsoever, would not be a ground for grant of another opportunity. iii) That the plaintiffs shall be entitled to one opportunity to rebut the evidence, if any led by the defendants. Civil Revision No. 3049 of 1999 (O&M) (4) iv) That since the appeal is pending for the last 11 years, the exercise of recording of evidence, shall be conducted by the first Appellate Court itself and the appeal shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date certified copy of the order is produced before the first Appellate Court. The petitioner, through his counsel, is directed to appear before the learned first Appellate Court on 10.1.2011, for further proceedings, in accordance with law. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 22.11.2010 ds