IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.12.2010 C.R.No.2789 of 2009 Tarun Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Dhan Kaur @ Dhanno and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr.Vikrant Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shivrain, Advocate, for Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Smt. Dhapa. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned trial Court on 04.04.2009, whereby an application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was declined. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration challenging the decree dated 08.10.2003 suffered by Taqdir Singh-respondent No.2 in favour of Smt. Dhan Kaur-respondent No.1. Subsequently, on an application filed by Smt. Dhapa, she was impleaded as a party-respondent No.3, as Dhan Kaur sold land in dispute to her. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint, so as to plead that Dhan Kaur has earlier suffered a decree in favour of Taqdir Singh on 29.07.1993 and subsequently Taqdir Singh-defendant No.2 relinquished all the rights in favour of the petitioner vide decree dated 22.12.1995. Thus, Taqdir Singh could not suffer any decree in favour of Dhan Kaur, she having suffered a decree earlier in favour of the petitioner. C.R.No.2789 of 2009 Such amendment was declined by the learned trial Court, inter alia, for the reason that the trial has commenced and that the pleadings raised by the petitioner will allow the petitioner to set up a new case. Earlier the revision petition was allowed by this Court on 28.07.2009. Subsequently, an application was filed by respondent No.3 for recall of the order, as she was not impleaded as a party. The said order was recalled on 15.03.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a minor and the petitioner wishes to incorporate the sequence of events, whereby the petitioner was conferred ownership rights over the land in dispute. Even if, the petitioner is negligent, such negligence cannot defeat the rights of the petitioner, who is a minor. It is also contended that though the issues were framed, but any of the parties have yet to lead evidence, therefore, the request of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been declined illegally and arbitrarily. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently argued that plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 are the members of same family, who have colluded together to defeat the rights of respondent No.3, who is a purchaser for valuable consideration. Therefore, no case is made out for permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint, when the events in respect of decree were within the same family. The questions; whether the suit is bona fide or the decree suffered has created any interest in favour of the plaintiff, are required to be examined in the suit. While considering the application for amendment of the suit, what is required to be considered is whether the amendment to seek events leading to the decree in favour of the petitioner is required to be 2 C.R.No.2789 of 2009 incorporated and at a stage when the case is fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff. No doubt, the learned trial Court has fixed the case for the evidence of the plaintiff, but admittedly the plaintiff has not led any evidence. The plaintiff, who is minor, seeks to incorporate the factum of decree suffered by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and subsequently defendant No.2 in favour of the petitioner. Such documents are part of the Court record. The plea that it changes the cause of action is not tenable. In fact, the amendment sought explains the manner of deriving title by the plaintiff. Incorporation of such facts will enable the learned trial Court to decide the suit comprehensively and by deciding all questions inter parties. In view of the above, I find that the order passed by the learned trial Court on 04.04.2009 suffers from patent illegality and irregularity. It has caused substantial injustice to the petitioner. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned trial Court on 04.04.2009 is set aside. The plaintiff- petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint as sought for. 08.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3