SURJIT KAUR Vs. KARTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Surjit Kaur has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by order dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P/3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, whereby application for amendment of plaint and replication moved by the petitioner- plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

(3.) The plaintiff filed suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit land. She also claimed relief of permanent injunction. The defendants pleaded Will dated 21.8.1981 and agreement dated 8.4.1986 executed by plaintiff's husband Sadhu Singh in their favour. In the replication, the plaintiff denied the existence of the said documents and pleaded the same to be forged and fabricated ones. By way of amendment, the plaintiff wants to plead that on 27.5.2009, defendant nos. 3 and 4 along with one Atma Singh and five unknown persons took possession of the suit property forcibly and illegally. The plaintiff wants to seek relief of possession of the suit property. As regards amendment of replication, it is pleaded that in July, 2009 one Sukhdev Singh told the plaintiff that plaintiff's husband had executed agreement dated 8.4.1986 and handed over the same to Sukhdev Singh for giving it to the plaintiff at appropriate time but Sukhdev Singh forgot to hand over the agreement to the plaintiff after death of her husband Sadhu Singh. The plaintiff thus wants to admit the existence and execution of agreement dated 8.4.1986 as pleaded by the defendants. As regards amendment in the plaint, the plaintiff's case is totally frivolous and deserves to be rejected with heavy costs. Along with the instant revision petition, the petitioner has annexed amendment application Annexure P/1 allegedly moved in the trial court. The said application was moved for amendment of plaint only. In paragraph 3(c) of the said application, it was pleaded that defendant nos. 3 and 4 along with others took possession of the suit property forcibly and illegally on 22.3.2009 but in paragraph no. 2 of the application it was pleaded that defendant nos. 3 and 4 along with others took possession of the suit property illegally and forcibly on 27.5.2009. This application purports to have been typed some time in March, 2009 and for this reason it was pleaded in paragraph no. 3(c) of the application that possession was taken forcibly and illegally by defendant nos. 3 and 4 on 22.3.2009. However, the application was not moved immediately. On the other hand actual application moved by the plaintiff is dated 3.9.2009 which has been shown by the counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. A copy of this application is taken on record as Annexure RX. This application has been moved for amendment of plaint as well as replication. It, thus, becomes apparent from combined reading of applications Annexure P/1 and Annexure RX that the plaintiff has made out a false case of alleged forcible and illegal possession from the suit property by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 along with others. Even otherwise if the plaintiff had been forcibly dispossessed on 27.5.2009, she would not have waited till 3.9.2009 for moving application for amendment of plaint and replication. In between the case was fixed before the trial court on 1.6.2009 and 28.7.2009. The plaintiff would have been moved the application for amendment at least on the said dates of hearing. It has been alleged in the amendment application that the plaintiff had approached the police and the police assured that the possession would be restored to her within one or two days. Even if this version is accepted, the plaintiff would not have waited for more than three months for moving amendment application. At the cost of repetition, it has to be highlighted that the plaintiff has tried to make out a false case of illegal and forcible dispossession from the suit property. It is apparent from the fact that she pleaded her alleged dispossession on 22.3.2009 as well as on 27.5.2009. Consequently, the application for amendment of plaint has been rightly rejected by the trial court. There is no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned order of the trial court on this aspect. As regards amendment of replication, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 states that he has no objection to the amendment of replication to the extent the plaintiff wants to admit the existence and execution of agreement dated 8.4.1986 by plaintiff's husband Sadhu Singh and the plaintiff may produce the said agreement in her rebuttal evidence to which defendants have no objection. Consequently, amendment of replication to the aforesaid limited extent only is allowed by modifying the impugned order dated 8.10.2009, Annexure P/3 passed by the trial court. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.