SUMEER JASSAL Vs. SMT. PUSHPA RANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-Petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar, has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide impugned order the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC, for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed by the trial Court. Brief facts, relevant for the decision of the present revision petition, are that petitioner, as a minor instituted a suit through his uncle Shri Rajinder Kumar Jassal, as next friend, against Pushpa Rani, defendant No. 1 and others for declaration that he was owner in possession of the property in dispute after the death of Subhash Chander Jassal. By virtue of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, he sought to incorporate the plea that as a matter of fact, he was born to Tripta Devi from the lions of Surinder Kumar. Tripta Devi was the real sister of Suresh Chander Jassal as Suresh Chander Jassal and Pushpa Rani had no issue, the petitioner was adopted by them by a ceremony of giving and taking. Since the day of adoption the plaintiff enjoyed the status of natural born son in the family of Suresh Chander Jassal and Pushpa Rani and at the time of giving material instructions to the counsel, the next friend of petitioner did not inform the said fact to the counsel. It was claimed that the amendment was necessary for the just and proper decision of the case. The defendants-respondents contested the application for amendment on the ground that the amendment has been sought with mala fide intentions and that the plaintiff-petitioner is to estopped to file the application for amendment on account of his own act and conduct. The plaintiff wants to change the nature of the case. It was pleaded in the reply that Surinder Kumar and Tripata Devi are the real father and mother of petitioner and that they had cleverly incorporated the name of Suresh Chander Jassal as father. The trial Court vide impugned order has dismissed his application inter alia on the ground that defendant Pushpa Rani is an innocent lady. After the death of her husband Suresh Chander Jassal in order to grab the property of Suresh Chander, a suit was got filed through the plaintiff-petitioner claiming that he was born to Pushpa Rani and Suresh Chander but when Pushpa Rani had filed an application that the petitioner was not born to Pushpa Rani as the condition of her uterus would indicate that she is unable to bear a child and sought permission that ultra scan of her uterus be performed, the petitioner took an absolutely contradictory stand in his application for amendment of the plaint but pleaded that he was not the natural son of Pushpa Rani and Suresh Chander Jassal but was son of real sister of Suresh Chander Jassal namely Tripta Devi who was married to Surinder Kumar and that he was adopted by Pushpa Rani and Suresh Chander.

(2.) Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff has been deprived of an important right to establish his right of inheritance to the property of Suresh Chander being his adopted son, by declining the permission to amend the suit.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has tried to highlight the conduct of the plaintiff-petitioner to establish that he has been taking contradictory pleas in order to harass the defendants.