SUKHJINDER SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by Sukhjinder Singh, plaintiff, now petitioner, amendment of the written statement to counter claim-cum-replication was dismissed by the first Appellate Court as per order dated February 18, 2000. Hence, this civil revision by Sukhjinder Singh, plaintiff-decree holder.

(2.) Sukhjinder Singh, plaintiff, now petitioner, in whose favour the decree has already been passed wanted to raise a preliminary objection by adding the name of Pritam Singh son of Mohinder Singh as a necessary party to the suit. Similarly, on merits also, he wanted to amend the plaint to the effect that Mohinder Singh-defendant No. 1 was sole owner of the land measuring 535 kanals 12 marlas to the extent of 1/2 share. Out of this share, he had transferred half share of land in favour of Surjit Singh, defendant No. 2 and his brother Pritam Singh in equal shares meaning thereby that Mohinder Singh defendant was left owner to the extent of 1/4 share in the entire khata and Surjit Singh along with his brother Pritam Singh became owner of 1/4 share. Mutation was also sanctioned. He further goes on to add that there was no dispute between Mohinder Singh and Pritam Singh regarding land, nor any family arrangement had been effected between them. Thus, if there was any such decree, the same was illegal and null and void. The land being worth lacs of rupees could not be transferred without registered document. Mutation No. 5272 sanctioned on the basis of that decree was also illegal, null and void. Mohinder Singh-defendant No. 1 was thus co-sharer in the land measuring 535 kanals 12 marlas. Since Mohinder Singh had already suffered a decree in favour of Pritam Singh and Surjit Singh, therefore, there was no question of suffering second decree.

(3.) The amendment on the aforesaid terms could not be allowed by the Court and the same has been rightly declined. The suit was filed on 8.6.1989. Written statement-cum-counter claim was filed by Surjit Singh, defendant No. 2 on 11.8.1989. The plaintiff then filed a written statement to the counter claim of Surjit Singh on 3.10.1989. The suit remained pending in the trial Court till 12.8.1991. The appeal by Surjit Singh was filed on 3.5.1991, whereas the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been filed nearly after 7 or 8 years, i.e. on 17.7.1998. There is no justification or explanation coming forth as to why the aforesaid plea which was available to the petitioner was not taken up for all these years. The trial Court had already passed decree in favour of the petitioner which, of course, is under challenge before the first Appellate Court. Once the material issue has already been decided by the trial Court, there is hardly any material in the application seeking amendment to the written statement filed in reply to the counter claim of defendant No. 2.