HARJINDER SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present revision petition may be noticed in a very narrow compass. Harjinder Singh, plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit challenging the order of redemption passed by the Collector, Muktsar dated, 30-3-1987 under the provisions of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act on certain grounds. During the pendency of the suit, an application for amendment of plaint, has been filed by him to the effect that he may be permitted to delete the factual position that he was a mortgage in the suit land and that in place of the plea of his being mortgagee, he may be permitted to take up the plea that he was the owner of the suit land and that the sale deed dated 19-6-1958 and mutation No. 1089, dated 11-12-1960 was null and void and a mere paper transaction. THE amendment has been sought on the ground that pending the redemption application, the kidneys of the plaintiff were damaged as a result of which he had to go out of Punjab for treatment and that he never instructed his general attorney to take up the plea which was originally taken. THE amendment has been declined on the ground that once the plaintiff has admitted the existence of mortgage, he cannot deny the relationship of mortgagee and mortgagor and that if the amendment is allowed, it would amount to permit the plaintiff to withdraw an admission made in favour of the defendant THE trial Court was of the view that if the proposed amendment is allowed, the plaintiff would withdraw his admission and would also withdraw the fact that he was in possession of the suit land as a mortgagee and not as an owner.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner Shri R.K. Chopra, Advocate, has contended before me that the plaintiff never admitted that he was a mortgagee. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the plaintiff is challenging the order of redemption in his suit before the Civil Court and in view thereof it cannot successfully be argu(sic)d that there is an error in the order of the trial Court decling the amendment. THE ratio laid down by the apex Court in Modi Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 787, has rightly been applied in the instant case. THEre is nothing wrong in the view taken by the trial Court that the plaintiff is keen to delay the disposal of the suit. In any case, the order under challenge does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12-1-1990.