GURBINDER KAUR ALIAS GURMINDER KAUR Vs. JAGROOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application filed by the plaintiff to seek amendment in the plaint so as to claim a decree for possession was declined.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of 2/5th share of land measuring 273 Kanals 7 Marlas against her husband and challenging the decree dated 15.12.1993. During the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff moved an application that she has been dispossessed and therefore, claimed decree for possession but the same has been declined as the plaintiff has not disclosed the exact date and time of allegedly taking forcible possession and the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and that the plaintiff has a right to file a separate suit on the specific cause of action and therefore, the plaintiff has no right to amend the suit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the respondent was in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff has moved an application for amendment of the plaint at the fag end of the trial. Such amendment has been sought after gross delay when the factum of possession of the defendant was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Since the challenge is to the decree dated 15.12.1993, the question whether the plaintiff was in possession on the date of the filing of the suit or she has been subsequently dispossessed is only academic in nature. Once the plaintiff is able to prove that the decree dated 15.12.1993 is fraudulent, the consequential relief has to follow in favour of the plaintiff. Once the Court has found that the plaintiff has a right to file a separate suit the filing of such suit will lead to multiplicity of proceedings and it will not be conducive to the parties to litigate again and again on the same question. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court declining the amendment is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint so as to claim relief of possession as well. Since the plaintiff has sought the amendment after some delay, the amendment shall be allowed.