TEK CHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. CHANDERWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.4.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal, whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners, for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide application for amendment of plaint, the petitioners wanted to amend para No. 7 of the suit as earlier cases qua the land in dispute titled as "Tek Chand v. Nepal and Others", pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal; appeal, pending in the Court of Commissioner, Palwal; another appeal titled as "Tek Chand v. Nepal Chand & Others", pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Palwal; after that two more cases, one titled as "Tek Chand v. Chanderwati & Others" pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal and criminal complaint under Section 420 IPC, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hodal and earlier an appeal under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, decided by the Sessions Court, Palwal could not be mentioned in the original plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that necessity to amend the plaint has arisen because of change of counsel and the proposed amendment goes to the root of the case and the only object is to describe the previous litigations between the parties. On this point, reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Abdul Rehman and Another v. Mohd. Ruldu and Others, 2012 4 RCR(Civ) 481 and view taken by this Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. Joginder Sharma Bamra and Others, 2016 181 PunLR 719, wherein application for amendment was allowed by way of revision petition.

(3.) Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, appraisal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from that of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Abdul Rehman 's case and of this Court in Sarabjit Kaur's case . The Court below has already taken the correct view that the application has been filed when both the parties have already led their respective evidence and the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. The present application is an attempt to fill up the lacuna, which is legally not permissible. In the present case, trial of the case had already commenced and the application for amendment of plaint has been filed at much belated stage. The amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read as under:-