JASWINDER Vs. BARSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Litigation with respect to land situated in two revenue estates viz. village Takhani and Chak Gujran is pending adjudication between the parties. Barsar, respondent herein, as plaintiff before the lower court, has filed a suit against the petitioner-defendants and others for declaration to the effect that he is owner in joint possession of the land, detailed in the plaint, wherein decree of permanent injunction has also been sought against alienation of the land in suit. Petitioner-defendants at the time of filing of the written statements, failed to make mention of land pertaining to village Chak Gujran and also failed to claim ownership of land mutated in the name of Smt. Shanti, alleged to be inherited from Kartar Chand her son who has predeceased his mother Smt. Shanti.

(2.) In the amendment of counter claim sought by the defendant, petitioners herein, mention about land of village Chak Gujran is sought to be introduced in addition to furnishing an explanation as to how land of Kartar Chand (pre-deceased son of Smt. Shanti of village Takhani) by way of Will dated 24.1.1985 from Smt. Shanti had also come to them. Consequential changes in the written statement were also sought to be made. This application for amendment of the counter claim of the defendants was hotly contested by the plaintiff, respondents herein. Their claim is that Will dated 24.1.1985 is fabricated one. Merits of the pleadings sought to be introduced by way of amendment in the written statement cannot be gone into at this stage. Even comparative evaluation of merits of substance in pleadings of both the parties, is legally not permissible at the time of deciding the application for amendment of the pleadings.

(3.) During hearing, Counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs has vehemently argued that amendment of pleadings at a belated stage is not permissible. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendants, referring to Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another, 2010 1 CivCC 446 (SC) has urged that interpreting proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC added subsequently, Hon'ble Apex Court had explained that the proviso must be understood in the limited sense of meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. Referring to yet another decision viz., Surinder Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, 2009 4 CivCC 599 (SC), it is urged that amendment sought even at belated stage cannot be refused if it is found that the same was required for deciding real controversy between the parties and delay can be compensated on payment of costs.