JASBIR KAUR Vs. BALWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 13/9/2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide which the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner Order 6 Rule XVII CPC for amendment of the plaint (wrongly referred to as written statement in the impugned order) was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffpetitioner herein filed a suit for possession of the property as mentioned in head note 'A'of the plaint from defendant-respondents No.2 and 3 and a suit for permanent injunction. It was averred in the plaint that property mentioned as ABCD in the site plan Annexure 'X'was meant for tying animals and house shown as EFGHIMJKL was a residential house of the plaintiff-petitioner. From this house, husband of the plaintiff-petitioner purchased EFGHML from Randhir Singh and Kuldeep Singh vide a registered sale deed dtd. 16/4/1984. It was further averred that husband of the plaintiff-petitioner opened a door from this property into the main house which was ancestral house and thus the same had merged into the residential house of the plaintiff-petitioner. A Will dtd. 20/8/1987 was also propounded by the plaintiff-petitioner. When the case was fixed for arguments, the present application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner stating therein that the word 'EFGHIMJKL'was written in place of word 'EFGHJKL'and that it had inadvertently been pleaded that property shown as ABCD was ancestral and property marked EFGHIMJKL was a purchased one. However, it was vice-versa and that property shown as ABCD had been purchased and the other property was ancestral. Reply was filed to the said application. The application was dismissed vide impugned order dtd. 13/9/2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, on a query put by the Court as to whether the evidence had been led with regard to the earlier pleadings or with regard to the amended pleadings, has candidly admitted that the evidence led is qua the initial pleadings. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the mistake was inadvertent and that the plaintiffpetitioner only wants to now plead that the property marked ABCD was a purchased one and the property marked EFGHIMJKL was ancestral in nature.