DARSHAN SINGH Vs. BHOLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two petitions bearing Civil Revision Nos.5131 and 5136 of 2013. Challenge in Civil Revision No.5131 of 2013 is to the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by the learned court below whereby in a suit filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs therein) the application filed by the respondents/defendants for additional evidence was allowed. Challenge in the Civil Revision No.5136 of 2013 is to the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by the learned court below whereby in a suit filed by the respondents (plaintiffs therein) application filed by petitioner No.1 (defendant therein) for amendment of written statement was rejected.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the younger son of the petitioners having been murdered by Bhola Singh and Jupa Singh on 25.4.2010, FIR No.16 dated 26.4.2010 was registered at Police Station Bilianwali under Section 302/34 IPC. When trial was still pending, the petitioners filed a suit for damages on account of murder of their son specifically alleging that it was caused by respondents/defendants in the suit. The prosecuting agency having recorded wrong statement of the complainant at the time of registration of FIR and not collecting and producing proper evidence before the court, the accused were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the respondents filed a suit for damages on account of alleged malicious prosecution. In that suit, written statement was filed by petitioner No.1. In the written statement filed in the suit filed by the respondents claiming damages on account of malicious prosecution, the counsel being different than who filed suit for damages on behalf of the petitioners, claiming damages on account of murder of their son, pleaded in the written statement that the son of the petitioners was murdered by Bhola Singh and Nirmal Singh @ Nimma. The counsel had taken the facts from the FIR, whereas, the definite stand of the petitioners in the suit filed by them was that the murder was caused by the respondents. The suit filed by the petitioners was prior in time. When the aforesaid typographical error was noticed, application for amendment was filed, which has been wrongly dismissed by the learned court below. In case the amendment is allowed, no prejudice as such is going to be caused to the respondents. Even the nature of the suit is not going to be changed. He further submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioners for damages, the respondents filed an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence to produce on record the written statement filed by the petitioners in the suit filed by them for damages for malicious prosecution.