Tarsem Singh And Another v. Inderjit Kaur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CR-6444-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.02.2023 Tarsem Singh and another

...Petitioners

Versus

Inderjit Kaur

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN H.S. MADAAN , J.

Being impugned in this revision petition is the order dated 30.07.2019, vide which the trial Court had allowed an application for amendment of plaint filed by the plaintiff.

"Perusal of the file shows that the applicant has filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction as detailed in the head note of the plaint against the defendant. The perusal of the head note shows that in the head note of the original plaint, the applicant has claimed declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the land measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas being 1/6 share of land 31 kanals 12 marlas of the property

detailed in the head note of the plaint. Further, in para No. 4 of the original plaint, the applicant has specifically pleaded that Kulwinder Singh was owner of the property measuring 31 kanals 12 marlas and out of that property, he transferred half share in the name of his son Tarsem Singh i.e. respondent No. 1. Now, coming to the application in hand the simple reading of the application clearly shows that the applicant has prayed for amendment to the effect of claiming declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the land to the extent of 1/3rd share out of the property measuring 15 kanals 16 marlas. It is clearly shown that in the original plaint she is claiming 1/6th share out of 31 kanal 12 marlas in the present application, along with other reliefs, she is claiming 1/3 share out of 15 kanal 16 marlas.

As such, their does not appear any malafide intention on the part of the application. It does not appear that she is concealing anything from the Court qua the sale of half of the share by the husband of plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1. The remaining amendments sought by the applicant by way of present application also appears to be bonafide and errors/ommissions appears to be merely result of clerical error. As such, this Court does not found any injustification in allowing the present application in order to read to a logical end of the case in hand. Accordingly, the application in hand is allowed. Now, the case is adjourned to 19.08.2019 for filing the amended plaint."

Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the civil revision petition. The same stands dismissed accordingly.