LAWS(P&H)-2000-2-31

CHANAN SINGH Vs. SARWAN SINGH

Decided On February 29, 2000
CHANAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
SARWAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 10.8.1998 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application of the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of a "taur" measuring 12 marlas against the defendants and also prayed for the grant of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for the amendment of the plaint, alleging therein that the plaintiffs had inadvertently mentioned in the heading of the plaint that it was a suit for possession of the "taur" in dispute whereas the same is already in possession of the plaintiffs and similarly name of plaintiff No. 7 was inserted in the plaint even though he had already died. It was further alleged that in the plaint the plaintiffs had challenged the decree obtained by Ranjit Singh in Civil Suit No. 25 of 16.1.1987 but the details of the same had not been mentioned in para 6 of the plaint and the said para required clarification. It was further alleged that even the relief clause required amendment so that relief for possession was not claimed. It was further alleged that defendants 6 to 12 were impleaded as defendants in the suit inadvertently and their names were required to be deleted from the array of defendants. It was accordingly prayed that the plaintiffs may be allowed to amend the heading of the plaint, para 6 of the plaint and the relief clause and be also allowed to delete the name of Karnail Singh, plaintiff No. 7, who is already dead and to correct the name of plaintiff No. 37 as Charan Singh instead of Chanan Singh and to delete the names of defendants 6 to 12. The said application of the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides and after perusing the record dismissed the said application vide order dated 10.8.1998. It is against this order of the trial Court that some of the plaintiffs have filed the present revision petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners only wanted to omit the prayer for possession as they were already in possession of the suit property and this fact was already mentioned by them in the body of the plaint but inadvertently in the heading of the plaint and relief clause the relief of possession was wrongly sought. It was further submitted that regarding the civil Court decree, the plaintiffs were not challenging the validity of the decree but were submitting that the plaintiffs being not a party to the said suit in which the said decree was passed were not bound by the said decree. It was submitted that the trial Court wrongly dismissed the application of the plaintiffs by holding that any right had accrued to the defendants or that plaintiffs now cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of the decree. Reliance has been placed on 1984(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 301 : AIR 1985 SC 817, Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents submitted before me that no amendment could be allowed especially when the limitation for challenging the decree had already expired. Reliance was placed on 1996(1) Recent Revenue Reports 634 (Supreme Court) Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh.