BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. HARDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 29/9/2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala vide which an application filed by them under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the proposed amendments are necessary to elucidate and elaborate the stand already taken by the petitioners in the plaint. He further submits that the counsel for the petitioners while preparing the case, felt the necessity to amend the plaint and since foundation of the facts sought to be incorporated by way of the proposed amendment already exist in the plaint, i.e., the factum of partition on the basis of the Salasnamna dtd. 9/11/2003, the respondents would not be in any manner adversely affected by the proposed amendment.

(3.) Learned counsel still further submits that though the Salasnama had been duly attested by all the parties including the respondents, however, its execution had been disputed by the respondents in the written statement. Hence, in the circumstances, the proposed amendment would be necessary for the just and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. In support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in'Prithi Pal Singh and another vs. Amrik Singh and others', 2013(9) SCC 576;'Mahila Ramkali Devi and others vs. Nandram (D) Thr. Lrs and others', 2015(3)SCC 132;'Varun Pahwa vs. Mrs. Renu Chaudhary', 2019(2) RCR (Civil) 383;'State of Bihar and others vs. Modern Tent House and anr', 2017(8) SCC 567;'M/s Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manohar Lal', 2017(5) SCC 212 and'Mount Mary Enterprises vs. M/s Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd.', 2015(4) SCC 182.