JEETO Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is impugning the order dtd. 30/10/2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Tarn Taran whereby his application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and being contrary to the settled principles of law, deserves to be set aside. He submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that it was due to inadvertence of the earlier counsel representing the petitioner that the original plaint did not contain all the material particulars qua the matter in issue, between the parties. He submits that though the petitioner alleged that the sale deeds dtd. 3/2/1983 and 6/3/1986 were not executed by his father, however, due to inadvertence the aforesaid sale deeds were not challenged in the plaint, therefore, the petitioner now wanted to incorporate the relief of declaration qua them and in addition thereto, also wanted the addition of alternative relief of possession. Learned counsel urged that the amendments sought by the petitioner were necessary for the just and effective adjudication of the case in hand, more so, to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings between the parties. He still further submits that the petitioner, who is a rustic lady, should not be made to suffer on account of the mistake of her previous counsel, more so, when the proposed amendment would not in any manner prejudice the respondents.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the submissions made by the counsel opposite and asserted that the proposed amendments are substantial in nature which, without a doubt, would change the entire complexion of the suit in question. He submits that the petitioner was well aware of all the facts which she was now seeking to include by way of the proposed amendment, however for the reasons best known to her, rather obvious, she chose to keep quiet all along and it was at a highly belated stage, the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was moved and apparently to delay the conclusion of the trial and to fill in the lacunae in the case.