HUKAM PAL Vs. BHARTO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At issue, in this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the legality and validity of the order dated September 14, 1983 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri whereby he has dismissed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for the amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner.

(2.) It has been filed in the following circumstances :- Smt. Bharto, father's sister of Hukam Pal plaintiff-petitioner, sold land in dispute to respondents Nos. 2 to 11. The petitioner on June 15, 1982 filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption on the plea that, being the vendor's brother's son, he had a superior right of pre-emption. Before even the defendant-respondents could file their written statement, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint seeking permission to plead that the sale by Smt. Bharto was in respect of the suit land to which she had succeeded from her father. This application was opposed by the vendee- defendants. They pleaded that the period of limitation for filing the suit had already expired. They had acquired a valuable right and the same could not be defeated by allowing the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment would tantamount to setting up a new plea for the plaintiff after the lapse of the time for filing the suit. The learned trial Judge rejected this application.

(3.) Mr. R.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit was filed on behalf of a minor. Necessary facts constituting the cause of action had been mentioned in the application. However by inadvertence it was not mentioned that the vendor had succeeded to the land in dispute through her father. By the proposed amendment the petitioner only sought to clarify the position. He did not want to introduce a new cause of action or a new ground for pre-emption. The application for amendment was bona fide. The object of the law of procedure is to advance justice and not to obstruct it; and if a party or its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case initially, the short comings can certainly be removed by amendment of the pleadings and the opposite party can be compensated by costs for the inconvenience or expenses caused from omission. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that without pleading that the land in dispute had been inherited by the vendor from her father, the petitioner could not succeed in the suit. The very material ingredient of the cause of action had not been alleged. In support of his case, he cited before me the decisions of this Court in Shankar Singh v. Chanan Singh,1968 PunLR 455, Gurmukh Singh v. Dalip Singh,1971 PunLR 880 and Jarnail Singh v. Prem and others, 1984 PunLJ 205.