Civil Revision No.5559 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5559 of 2008. Date of decision:- 23.01.2009. Chhajju Ram ...Petitioner Versus The Collector, Amritsar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral) By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-plaintiff prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Amritsar whereby application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. The facts are stated that the petitioner-plaintiff was industrial worker in the firm known as 'Akash Weavers & Dyers' and vide allotment letter No.426 dated 29.01.1985, alloted house bearing No.102, situated at Shiv Nagar, Labour Colony, Islamabad, Amritsar. It is alleged that as per terms and conditions of the said allotment letter dated 29.01.1985, sale deed qua the said house was required to be registered in the name of petitioner- plaintiff. Defendants having failed to execute the same and upon serving of legal notice under Section 80 of CPC, he filed a suit for mandatory injunction on 12.12.2003 for issuance of the suitable direction to execute Civil Revision No.5559 of 2008 -2- the conveyance in respect of the aforesaid house in favour of the plaintiff. Upon notice, written statement was filed on 23.08.2005. The claim of the petitioner-plaintiff was denied but the execution of the allotment letter and the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff was admitted. However, it is averred that the possession was unauthorized. The petitioner-plaintiff moved an application, when the case was listed for final arguments, under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC praying for the amendment of the main suit by heading adding the following lines at the fag-end of the head note of the plaint in the following manner:- “And for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the quarter/house No.102.” as well as by adding para No.6A after para No.6 of the plaint in the following manner:- “That the defendants have filed their written statement and also adduced their evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit and in their cross-examination they have admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the said house since the year 1972. Such possession of the plaintiff since 1972 is continuous, open, uninterrupted and hostile and the plaintiff has become owner thereof by way of adverse possession.” as well as by adding the following lines at the fag-end of para No.11 of the plaint, in the following manner:- “the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction for the relief of declaration is Rs.195/- and as such, a requisite court fee of Rs.19.50p is affixed on the Civil Revision No.5559 of 2008 -3- plaint.” The respondents-defendants have filed reply to the application and stated that it has never been admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the quarter in question since 1972 nor his illegal, unauthorized possession over the same is open, uninterrupted or hostile one. He had been asked on so many occasions to vacate the quarter but he did not vacate the same rather he filed a suit in the year 1988 for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants, wherein he had a 'status quo' order in his favour, which was ultimately decided against the petitioner-plaintiff and the order dated 01.09.1986 cancelling the allotment dated 29.01.1986 was held to be legal and valid. It is further stated that even then the petitioner- plaintiff has not vacated the said quarter with malafide intention. After considering the reply and hearing the arguments, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar by relying on the ratio of law discussed in the case Bhim Singh & ors. v. Zile Singh & Ors., 2006(3) CCC 479 (P & H) wherein it is held that no declaration can be sought by the petitioner-plaintiff with regard to his ownership on the basis of adverse possession as the same plea is only available as a plea of defence to a defendant-declined the proposed amendment. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and examining the material on record, it is clear that the possession of the petitioner-plaintiff in the official quarter since 1972 was neither authorized nor the same is open uninterrupted or hostile. During the interim period, he had remained in possession of the said quarter due to interim order granting 'status quo' in the civil suit filed by him in the year 1988, which was ultimately decided against him and the order passed by the competent Civil Revision No.5559 of 2008 -4- authority cancelling his allotment vide order dated 29.01.1986 was held to be legal and valid. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar has also rightly relied on the ratio of law in Bhim Singh's case (supra) wherein it is being held that plea of adverse possession is available only as a plea of defence to a defendant. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar declining the amendment of the plaint at the stage of final arguments is legal and valid. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which would warrant interference under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Nothing stated above shall be taken an expression of opinion on merits of the case. Dismissed. January 23, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE