KALWANT SINGH, ETC. Vs. SHER SINGH ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners Kulwant Singh and others, are legal representatives of Tara Singh who had purchased the agricultural land in dispute situate at village Mundhiala by means of a registered sale deed, dated 7th June, 1967, from Santa Singh Respondent No. 2. Sher Singh (Respondent No. 1), pre -empted the sale claiming superior right of pre -emption on the plea that he was the real brother of Santa Singh. In contesting the suit Tara Singh vendee, besides setting up a plea of estoppel and limitation pleaded that the suit was bad for partial pre -emption and was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre -emption Act, as a portion of the suit -land was Banjar -Qadim and the same was reclaimed by the vendee after the date of the sale. On this written statement, dated 27th December, 1968, issues arising in the case were settled on 23rd March, 1969, and thereafter the evidence produced by the parties was recorded. Before the Defendant Tara Singh could close his evidence, he unfortunately died and on 23rd August, 1969, the present Petitioners applied for being impleaded as his legal representatives. Their application having been allowed, they produced further evidence and closed their case on 12th March, 1970. Thereafter the Plaintiff closed his evidence in rebuttal on 28th March, 1970, and the case was adjourned to 10th April, 1970, for arguments. Again it came up for arguments' on 18th April, 1970. Instead of proceeding with the arguments, the present Petitioners made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the written statement that had been put in by Tara Singh so as to introduce the plea that Tara Singh deceased -vendee was the tenant of the vendor in a portion of the suit -land at the time of the sale and thus the sale to that extent was not pre -emptible. The learned Subordinate Judge having disallowed this prayer for amendment, Kulwant Singh and other legal representatives of the deceased -vendee have come up in revision.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties' counsel, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition and it must fail. Ignoring the fact that it has been laid down in some cases, including Mangatrai Melaram v. Ranjit Singh Aggarwal Civil Revision No. 1065 of 1968, decided on 21st August, 1969, that no petition for revision lies against an order refusing to allow amendment. I find that the learned Subordinate Judge has acted in consonance with the rules governing the question of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and his order is eminently just and proper. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors. : A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 363, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which, satisfy the, two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is oh the latter clause that Mr. Badhitar Singh, appearing for the Petitioner, has laid emphasis. He argues that if the assertion of the Petitioners that their father was a tenant in a portion of the suit -land at the time of the sale is correct, then the said was not pre -emptible, and since this is a question which goes to the root of the case, the amendment should be allowed. In the same authority it is further observed that amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. The same rule was reiterated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon : A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1267, and it was observed that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice and a party cannot be refused, just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. Their Lordships further added that the Courts always give leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. The matter was also considered by the same Court in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Vallery Corporation : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 96, and it was held that in the matter of allowing amendment of pleading the general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on the new cause of action is barred. Where, however

(3.) IT is needless to refer to other authorities as the principles dealing with an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 seem to be now well -settled, and they may be stated as follows: