NIRMALA Vs. SHIV LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two civil revision petitions challenging two orders arising in the same proceedings. The first revision petition i.e., CR-246-2019 has been filed by the petitioner Nirmala challenging the order dtd. 10/12/2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide which the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has only been partly allowed. The second revision petition i.e., CR-248-2019 has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner Nirmala challenging the order dtd. 10/12/2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide which application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permission to produce certified copies of documents by way of additional evidence has also only been partly allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the decree dtd. 9/3/1991 passed in Civil Suit no.225-C of 1991 in favour of predecessor in interest of the defendant is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and for possession and had also sought consequential relief of injunction on 22/1/2015 with respect to land measuring 50 kanals situated at village Bir, Hisar, District Hisar. It is submitted that the issues in the said case were framed on 28/9/2015 and the plaintiff evidence was closed on 8/4/2016 and thereafter, defendant evidence was also closed on 27/2/2017. It is further submitted that a part of the said suit land i.e., land measuring 18 kanals 9 marlas was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India and during the pendency of the suit, the possession of the land was also taken and thereafter on 17/2/2017, compensation of an amount of Rs.2,24,69,510.00 along with interest was received by the defendant. It is stated that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Sec. 151 CPC for amendment of plaint was filed by the petitioner in which three amendments were sought. The learned trial Court vide order dtd. 10/12/2018 had permitted the petitioner to make two amendments which were proposed in paragraph 4 (i) and (ii) of the application but did not permit the petitioner to make the amendment which was proposed in paragraph 4 (iii) of the application on the ground that the said issue related to the dispute regarding apportionment of the amount deposited by the Central Government for the acquisition of the land and the said plea could not be raised in view of the provisions of Sec. 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. It is argued that the rejection of the application qua permitting the petitioner to carry out the third amendment was illegal on two grounds. It is submitted that it is a matter of settled law that at the time of considering amendment of pleadings, the merits of the amendment sought are not to be seen or adjudicated upon and it is only the necessity of the amendment which is to be seen. It is argued that the amendments are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and that in case the decree under challenge is held to be illegal, then the consequential reliefs, including the relief of return of compensation, received by the respondents are required to be granted to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the delay if any caused would only harm the plaintiff inasmuch as it is the plaintiff who is seeking possession of the property in question. It is further argued that even the observation in the impugned order on merits is also against law, as it has been repeatedly held by this Court that where a question of title is to be adjudicated, the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be stated to be barred. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Lal and others vs. Sham Lal and others reported as 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 484 and also on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision no.1748 of 1988 titled as "Malkiat Singh vs. Harnek Singh" decided on 14/8/1991. It is further argued that once the Court had allowed the petitioner to make two amendments, the Court should have necessarily allowed the petitioner to make the third amendment also and the respondent could have been permitted to file amended written statement and raise all pleas / objections in the same and the case would have been decided in totality at the time of the final judgment and not at the stage of deciding the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(3.) With respect to CR-248-2019, it is submitted that the petitioner had moved an application for permission to produce certified copies of the