Ajit Singh Alias Ajit Pal Singh v. Surjit Kaur And Others

AT CHANDIGARH **** CR-5064-2024 Date of Decision.:04.09.2024 Ajit Singh @ Ajit Pal Singh Pe&&oner Vs.

Surjit Kaur and Others Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the peoner.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of impugned order dated 20.07.024 (Annexure P-7), the trial Court has declined the prayer of the peoner- plainff to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

Learned counsel contends that suit was filed for declaraon to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the suit property and had prayed for decree of permanent injuncon. By way of amendment he wanted to add another property in Village Dhade Baba Mohar Singh. The prayer has been declined by observing that allowing the applicaon would add a new cause of acon and will alter the nature of the suit and the proceedings. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that case is sll at the stage of service inasmuch as defendant No.6 has not been served ll date. The said fact is even confirmed by learned counsel for the peoner before this Court.

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.04 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-5064-2024 Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.07.2024 is not sustainable. Without issuing any noce to the respondents, in order to avoid unnecessary delay, the present peon is allowed. Trial Court is directed to permit the plainff to amend the plaint. However, it is subject to ₹5,000/- as cost payable to the respondents- defendants, who have already been served. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE September 04, 2024 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.04 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document