146 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-1192-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision:12.12.2022
Jugraj Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Baljit Kaur and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr.Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Manut Arya, Advocate for the respondents ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral) The petitioner's application for permission to amend the plaint, in order to add the following assertions, at the end of para 5 of the plaint, has been dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division):-
"Needless to add that previously Parkash Singh and Prabhjot Singh filed a civil suit i.e suit for declaration regarding the whole joint khata and challenged the illegal mutation which was entered on the basis of false and forged alleged agreement of partition. The said alleged mutation and alleged partition was not accept by the plaintiff and the said alleged partition was rejected by the Civil court vide judgment and decree dated 3.3.2012 passed by the court of Smt. Hargurjit Kaur, Civil Judge, Batala; hence the khata of the said land is still joint between the original co-sharers. The said litigation is not relevant for the decision of the present suit. In the said litigation, the present plaintiff was exparte."
In substance, the petitioner's suit for grant of decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering into his peaceful possession is pending in the trial court. The suit is with respect to three different properties specified as Schedules A, B and C in the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 19-12-2022 20:39:42 ::: CR-1192-2022 (O&M) 2 plaint. While filing the suit, the plaintiff claims to be in exclusive possession of property mentioned in Schedule A and as co-sharer/co- owner in possession of the properties specified in Schedules B and C. In order to incorporate the fact with regard to previous litigation, the application was filed, which was dismissed by the trial court, while observing that if the plaint is permitted to be amended, then it would mean permitting the plaintiff to change his stand with regard to his possession over the Schedule A of the property.
From a bare look at the reading of the proposed amendment, it is evident that the plaintiff only wants to refer to the previous litigation between the parties. Merely referring to the previous litigation in the present plaint does not amount to change of stand of the plaintiff. The suit is still at the preliminary stage. Hence, the order under challenge, being unsustainable, is set aside. The plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint.
The revision petition stands allowed.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
12.12.2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 19-12-2022 20:39:42 :::