TARSEM LAL Vs. SHADI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Chandigarh whereby he refused permission to the petitioner to amend the plaint. The permission was declined only on the ground that the plaintiffs wanted to introduce inconsistent pleas in the plaint.

(2.) The approach of the learned Judge is not correct. A plaintiff can take alternative pleas in the plaint although the same may appear to be inconsistent, neverthelss these are permissible in law. The plaintiff can sustain his claim on more than one ground and the party to the lis can seek amendment of the pleadings even at a belated stage. Negligence or ommission will not disentitle him to amed his pleading provided the amendment sought does not divest the other party of a vested right which has accrued either by lapse of time or by result of admission.

(3.) The plaintiff sough a declaration from the Court that they were the owners of the plot in dispute. It devolved upon them on the death of their father on the basis of a Will. Their father got the plot in dispute in a family settlement dated May 11,1971. It was sought to be explained how the plot devolved to them by seeking amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought is not inconsistent with the original pleas made in the plaint. There is no justification for declining the prayer for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought to be introduced is not destructive of the original plea taken in the plaint. The amendment in fact will finally resolve the dispute interparties. The revision petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The plaintiffs are directed to amend the plaint as prayed for subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- as costs. The parties are allowed to bear their own costs of this petition.