RASILA RAM Vs. KRISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Defendant's revision petition against an order dated January 15, 1973, of the learned Subordinate 1st Class, Kangra, permitting an amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land by pre -emption on the footing that he was a co -sharer with the vendor, Mangal, and besides that he was a collateral of the vendor. The Plaintiff subsequently applied for permission to amend paragraph 2 of the plaint in order to include the assertion that he was the vendor's father's brother's son. The amendment sought by the Plaintiff was opposed on the ground that it was belated and the period of limitation for a re -emption suit had expired. The learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the amendment application, and hence this revision petition by the Defendant.

(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that the revision petition must fail. One of the bases on which the suit was brought was that the Plaintiff was a collateral of the vendor. It is true that the expression "collateral" does not precisely declare the relationship between the Plaintiff and the vendor and does not by itself provide a basis for a pre -emption suit. But, as the learned Subordinate Judge has pointed out, from the very outset the Plaintiff has described himself in the cause -title in the plaint as the son's son of Jwala and disclosed himself as a collateral of Mangal, who is also a grand son of Jwala. There was sufficient data already in the plaint from which the Plaintiff 's relationship with the vendor could be ascertained, and if by an amendment of the plaint the Plaintiff sought to make the position only clearer there is no reason why the amendment should be refused. The relationship of the Plaintiff and of Mangal to Jwala which has been so set out in the plaint makes it apparent that the Plaintiff had brought his suit on the footing that he was the vendor's father's brother's son. The attempt to amend the plaint now was directed merely to specifying the precise relationship in the body of the plaint itself. In the circumstances, I am not impressed by the submission that the amendment could not be affected because the period of limitation for filing a pre -emption suit had expired. The Defendant relies on Shankar Singh v/s. Chanan Singh ., 1968 P.L.R 455 but, as is apparent from what has been said above, the facts on which that case was decided are distinguishable.