BALJEET KAUR Vs. GUDDU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 12/3/2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for the amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff/petitioner is the sister of defendant No.1 and has filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land to the extent of share which had been mentioned in the headnote of the plaint. It is further submitted that other reliefs are also prayed for. It is argued that there was a typographical mistake in the mentioning of khasra number in the plaint and thus, the amendment application was moved to correct the said typographical error. It is pointed out that another typographical mistake was there in the plaint to the effect that 'Hari 2016' had been mentioned instead of 'Hari 2017'. It is submitted that an additional prayer was made in the application to the extent that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is not in possession of the land in dispute, in that eventuality the plaintiff is entitled to the joint possession of the land in dispute. It is further submitted that the plaintiff undertakes that he would not lead any evidence in support of the said amendments and the same is necessary for proper and final adjudication of the case. It is argued that the application for amendment filed by the petitioner has been illegally rejected by the trial Court vide order dtd. 12/3/2025 (Annexure P-5).

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that since the application is belated, thus, in case the said application is to be allowed, then, the petitioner should be burdened with costs. It is further submitted that in case the prayer of the petitioner with respect to joint possession/possession is to be considered, then, respondent No.1 be granted liberty to raise a plea at the stage of final arguments that the requisite court fee has not been paid by the petitioner.