Civil Revision No. 5953 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5953 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.2.2010 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Kashmir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. In the course of the pleadings at the trial, the respondent- plaintiffs did raise a consistent plea challenging the validity of the following documentation:- 1) Sale deed No.295/1 dated 13.5.1976. 2) Sale deed No.220/1 dated 23.5.1983. 3) Sale deed No.368/1 dated 25.5.1990. 4) Sale deed No.457/1 dated 31.5.1990 and 5) civil court decree conceded by Chand kaur in favour of Darshan Singh on 3.6.1994 in Civil Suit No.389 of 1994. After detailing the challenge to the validity of the documentation aforementioned, the respondent pleaded in concluding portion of para 5 as under:- “That the plaintiff prays that a decree for declaration to the effect that the mutation no.1182 in favour of the defendants Civil Revision No. 5953 of 2008 -2- **** No.1 to 9 and sale deed/transfer executed and suffered by the defendant No.1 to 9 in favour of the deft. No.10 to 17 mentioned in clause (a) to (g) of the para no.5 are illegal, null & void, against law and facts and same does not create any right, title or interest in favour of the defendants and a decree for possession of the suit land mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint be passed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” Concededly, the trial was fixed for purpose of recording of rebuttal evidence and arguments when the respondent-plaintiff filed a plea for amendment of the plaint to seek a relief regarding the invalidity of the documentation aforementioned in the relief clause. The plea was allowed by the learned Trial Court by observing that the proposed amendment would not amount to introduction of a new relief in view of the fact that relevant ground of challenge has already been indicated in the pleadings at the trial. The learned Trial Court further observed that the proposed amendment is necessary for the proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties thereto. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants/petitioners relies upon Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 481 in support of the averment that the allowance of the amendment plea at the fag end of the trial was inappropriate. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent relied upon Bhawanjit Singh and others Vs. Jaswinderjit Singh Bhuller and others 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 471 (P&H) and Arjan Singh Vs. Bachan Singh 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 361 wherein it Civil Revision No. 5953 of 2008 -3- **** was held that if the proposed amendment did not require recording of any evidence or the frame of any additional issue and further if the amendment was necessary for deciding the real question of controversy. it may be allowed. In the present case, it is apparent that the allowed amendment would not enable the plaintiff-respondent to introduce a new cause of action. It also would not require the framing of additional issue. There would also be no necessity of adducing any further evidence. Infact, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, there is an averment in the amendment plea itself ( a copy whereof is available on the file of this Court) that the plaintiff would not lead any evidence as no evidence is required after the amendment by the plaintiff. We must always be cognizant of the fact that essentially, nay the only, purpose of the procedural law is to enable the Court to do substantial justice between the parties. Except under certain eventualities wherein a pure question of law may be under adjudication, it would be impractical to hold that a particular judicial pronouncement would apply on all fours to a given case. If, however, there is complete similarity of facts, it would be an altogether different situation. The law cannot be said to be a static entity. It must evolve itself in order to be able to answer requirements of a given situation in a particular case. That is the precise purpose and characteristic of the law. It is apparent from a perusal of the pleadings of the respondent/petitioner that he did raise a plea for the invalidation of the impugned documentation. It is in the course of the relief claimed that the respondent/petitioner omitted to seek a relief for invalidation Civil Revision No. 5953 of 2008 -4- **** aforementioned. In that view of things, the impugned order of the learned Trial Court (allowing the amendment plea) cannot be faulted on any valid score. In the light of the above discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 22, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE