GURNAM SINGH Vs. SARBJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 18.12.1998 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide the impugned order the learned trial Court while allowing the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-applicant, held as under:-

(2.) The learned counsel while placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Reheja Construction Limited v. Alliance Ministries and Ors., A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1768 and also in the case of Shrimoni Gurdwara Committee v. Jaswant, 1996(2) Apex Court Journal 358 (S.C), argued that when a party takes a stand in the pleadings, it cannot be permitted to oppose such a stand by way of amendment. According to the learned counsel, thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) As far as the proposition of law as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-mentioned cases is concerned, there can be no controversy. What has to be examined is whether these cases have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The parties are already at issue whether the plaintiff is still owner in possession of the suit property or not. In other words, the plaintiff has already claimed himself to be owner of the property in question which fact has been disputed by the defendant in the written statement. Infact, in the written statement it has been stated that Gurmukh Singh father of the defendant by means of a regular sale deed had taken possession of the property. After the filing of the written statement the applicant claims to have made some enquiries about the previous title holder of the property in question. The only fact which is sought to be introduced by way of amendment is that the husband of the plaintiff has purchased the property from Sardarni Harbans Kaur who had purchased the property from Sardar Gurmukh Singh. The facts now sought to be pleaded by way of amendment are in consonance with the original case pleaded by the applicant. It no way changes or alters the case of the plaintiff to the prejudice to the defendant. It is only the elucidation of the facts founded on the same cause of action. Consequently, I am unable to find any error of jurisdiction or otherwise in the impugned order which would call for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision is dismissed in limine.