ARGANJAN KAUR Vs. JASJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against the order dated 2nd April, 1994 whereby the petitioner's application of amendment of plaint has been declined. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that law with regard to amendment of the pleadings is fairly liberal as held in various judicial pronouncements of this Court and so the trial Court erred in law in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in him. On facts, the counsel for the petitioners urged that by means of the proposed amendment, petitioners in the alternative want to take a plea that they are owners in possession on the basis of exchange. No doubt the plea already taken is somewhat contradictory to the one intended to be taken by seeking amendment of the plaint yet this by itself is no bar and so the trial Court ought to have granted the prayer. Similarly, it is not a ground to decline the prayer merely on the ground of delay as the other party can well be compensated by cost. This prayer has been strenuously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Making reference to the averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint, it has been urged that the plea sought to be raised is contradictory to the one already taken. As per averments made in the plaint it is the case of the plaintiff that he has become owner of the suit land by adver possession and so the plea now sought to be raised basing its claim on a document of exchange is contradictory in its content and so has been rightly declined by the trial Court. Otherwise too, the present suit is wholly mis-conceived in view of the earlier judgment and decree dated 3rd November, 1992. Vide judgment and decree dated 3rd November, 1992 the suit filed by the respondent, a declaration has already been granted with respect to 14 kanals and 16 marlas of land got in exchange form prodecessor-in-interest of present petitioner-Tikka Balbir Singh Bedi and as regards the remaining 8 kanals 15 marlas of land respondents' suit has already been decreed. Against the judgment dated 3rd November, 1992 the petitioners have already filed an appeal. This way the suit itself is not maintainable and in any case there is no good ground to interfere with the well considered order of the trial Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the copy of the judgment in Jagjit Kaur and another v. Tikka Balbi Singh Bedi and another, decided on 3rd November, 1992. This judgment is in between the same parties and relates to the same matter which is subject matter of the present adjudication namely, whether there has been an exchange between the parties leading to the transfer of possession and consequently their rights in the property. It is the case of the respondents that plaintiffs are owner of the land to the extent of 14 Kanals and 5 marlas on the basis of exchange and the remaining land is with the respondents. Leaving aside the merits of the controversy between the parties, which is yet to be adjudicated upon by the Court, per se I find substance in the plea of the respondents with regard to the exchange between the parties and the transfer of possession pursuance thereto. Even otherwise, the plea now sought to be raised is self contradictory to the plea of adverse possession made basis for its claim in the suit. Taking a cumulative view of the matter, I am of the view that the trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction and declined the prayer for amendment. No case for interference is made out. Revision petition is consequently dismissed.

(3.) Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 19th April, 1995.