High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/6132/2016dismissed

Jarnail Singh And ORS v. Kulwant Singh And ORS

2016-09-19Mr. Justice Arun Monga2 pages

C.R. No.6132 of 2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6132 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.19.09.2016 Jarnail Singh and others .......Petitioners Vs.

Kulwant Singh and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the petitioners.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) C.M. No.18890-CII of 2016 The application for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased-Gurmej Singh and deceased-Kartar Singh is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the legal representatives are ordered to be brought on record.

C.R. No.6132 of 2016 The petitioners-defendants are aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the application of the respondents-plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint seeking addition of certain khasra numbers in the head note as well as in the prayer clause, has been allowed.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought would alter the nature and cause of action of the suit which is not permissible in law. Once the trial had begun, the amendment could not have been allowed as there is no compliance of the expression "despite due diligence".

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, appraised the paper book and of the view that subsequent event during the pendency of PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.09.22 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.R. No.6132 of 2016 (O&M) -2the suit qua raising of construction in the passage had arisen. Particularly, when the suit was not for plaintiffs' evidence, the alleged attempt said to have been made by the petitioner-defendant in this regard forced the respondent-plaintiff to amend the suit in order to avoid the technical implication at the fag end of the suit. I am of the view, if such amendment is sought, the same is required to be allowed, that is what has been done by the Court below.

I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order under challenge, much less, the same cannot be said to be passed without jurisdiction. No ground for interference is made out. The revision petition is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 19, 2016 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.09.22 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document