PARMINDER KAUR Vs. ANGREJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitioners and the respondents on caveat. By consent the case is taken on board for final disposal at the motion stage.

(2.) THE suit was filed in 2008 by the plaintiff, the respondent herein. The petitioners complain that they were not made a party to the suit though their rights were likely to be affected by the decree. They moved an application under O.1 Rl. 10 CPC for impleading them as parties in order to protect their direct interest in the subject matter. The application was allowed and they were added as defendants.

(3.) PETITIONER No. 1 claims ownership of 23 K 11 M of land by a sale deed dated 1st February, 2011 through GPA -petitioner No. 2 dated 27th January 2011 from LRs of late Kalraj Singh s/o Chanan Singh claiming title as vendees from five brothers all sons of late Phaga Singh. The respondents have filed separate suit against the petitioners and both the suits are pending trial. Certain admissions have been made by the plaintiffs -respondents in those suits with respect to the rights of the petitioners. However, no opinion has been expressed in the impugned order on any of the facts pleaded in those suits with respect to the present suit by the Court below. The learned trial judge by his impugned order dated 13th March, 2014 has permitted the amendment on reaching a conclusion that no prejudice would be caused to the opposite parties and if the change is allowed the nature of the suit would not be altered. These two conclusions have been arrived at without applying mind to all to the attending circumstances, the litigation pending between the parties and the law on the subject of amendments of plaints. Furthermore, the question of previous knowledge of the Jamabandies was lacking due diligence has not been considered for such facts were known to the respondents and those should have been pleaded in the first instance, that is in the plaint at least before the commencement of the trial which is not the position since the trial is in progress. In the amendment application is pleaded that the entry of title has not been recorded in the Column of Jamabandi by the Revenue Department and the same is liable to be corrected. The suit is an old one pending since 2008. The plaintiffs complain that a suit for permanent injunction has been sought to be converted to one for declaration which is impermissible. The proposed amendment seeks to convert the suit as one of declaration under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and Chapter 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 claiming ownership and possession of the described property and for permanent injunction for which latter purpose the suit was instituted in 2008. In the proposed amended plaint a prayer is made for declaring the names of Angrej Singh and the son and widow of Gurmail Singh, co -plaintiffs, as duly recorded in Column 4 of all the Jamabandies from 1960 -61 till date.