KULWINDER SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's revision petition against the order dated 13.4.2015 allowing the plaintiff-respondent to amend the plaint enabling him to describe the property with khasra numbers which was not originally mentioned in the plaint as the property in dispute had earlier been described with boundaries only.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the suit had been filed in the year 2012. The defendant petitioner had specifically taken up the plea in the written statement that the defendant had filed an application before the trial Court before filing the written statement to the effect that the plaintiff has not given the description of the property and that he will produce particulars regarding the ownership of the suit property. A copy of the said application has been placed on record as Annexure P2, indicating that the defendant had sought the information regarding khasra number or property number regarding the shop in dispute. He has relied upon judgment in Vidyabai and others Vs.Padmalatha and another, 2009 1 RCR(Civ) 763, in support of his contention that a Court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of pleadings after commencement of the trial and the trial will be deemed to have commenced after framing of issues. It has been submitted that in the present case, the issues were framed on 12.12.2013.

(3.) He has also relied upon judgment in Paal Kaur Vs.M/s Dhamotia and Company Property Dealers and others, 2012 168 PunLR 307, in support of his contention that after commencement of the suit the amendment cannot be allowed. He has referred to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the defendant in his written statement had mentioned the area of the property in dispute and brought it to the notice of the Court regarding the said infirmity but the application for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. The said order was upheld by this Court holding that the proposed amendment of the plaint seeking to incorporate the inadvertent error regarding the area of the plots in dispute was not permissible and that no amendment can be allowed after commencement of the trial.