MOHINDER SINGH Vs. SHINGARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking appropriate order or direction, quashing order dtd. 18/8/2021 (Annexure P1) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur in case titled as 'Shingara Singh vs. Mohinder Singh and others' in CM No. 221 of 2021 in civil suit No. Nil of 11/4/2019/13/8/2021 (original civil suit No. 241 of 1/6/2006).

(2.) The sole argument raised by counsel for the petitioners is that the Court below has erred in law in allowing the amendment because the relief claimed through the amendment introduced by the plaintiff had become time barred. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that instead of appreciating the arguments of the defendant qua the relief being time barred, the trial Court has gone on consideration as to whether the application for amendment was time barred or not; and has wrongly held that the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent was within the limitation, therefore, the amendment was rightly sought by the plaintiff.

(3.) Perusal of the case file shows that the suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff way back in the year 2006; in which there were assertions that the petitioner-defendant was not paying the rent since 2004 and, further, on account of that; the tenancy was terminated by the respondent-plaintiff with effect from 29/3/2006. Hence, it was prayed that possession of the suit property be ordered to be handed over to the respondent-plaintiff. The plaint also contained a prayer that any other relief; as deemed appropriate by the trial Court; be also granted to the plaintiff. The suit was partly decreed by the trial Court. While partly decreeing the suit, the possession was ordered to be delivered to the respondent-plaintiff. However, on the issue of tenancy, the Court had held that relationship of landlord and tenant could not be proved on record. Hence, qua that aspect, the suit was dismissed. Both the parties approached the appellate Court in two separate appeals. However, both the appeals were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by the appellate Court, the petitioner herein-defendant preferred a regular second appeal before this Court. This Court, vide order dtd. 18/3/2019 passed in RSA 6107 of 2015, decided the appeal and remanded the matter for de novo trial on the ground that the proper issues were not framed by the trial Court; and that findings were not recorded on certain aspects. Hence, the trial Court is now seized of the matter to proceed further with de novo trial from the stage of framing of the issues. Now, the amendment has been sought by the plaintiff to include the prayer qua mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property by the defendants, till possession is delivered to the plaintiff.