Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Sachdeva vs Roshan Lal And Others on 31 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
205 CR No.5509 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 31.08.2022
Ramesh Sachdeva ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Roshan Lal and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present: Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. R.P. Daaria, Advocate for the petitioner.
Service of respondent Nos.1 to 7 was dispensed with vide order
dated 06.02.2020.
Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.8 to 27.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
CM-10433-CII-2022
This is an application under Order XXII Rule 3 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for bringing on record the
legal representatives of petitioner, Ramesh Sachdeva, who is stated to have
died on 19.09.2020.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.8 to 27
states that he has no objection if the present application is allowed and the
legal representatives of the petitioner are impleaded as a party.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the
application, the same is allowed. The legal representatives of the petitioner
as mentioned in para 2 of the application are impleaded as party. Amended
memo of parties is taken on record. Vakalatnama of Mr. Shailendra Sharma,
Advocate on behalf of the legal representatives of the petitioner has already
been appended with the application, which is taken on record.
CR-5509-2019
The present revision petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 17.08.2019
passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hoshiarpur vide which the
JITENDER KUMAR
2022.09.01 14:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
Chandigarh
application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for
amendment of the plaint has been declined.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that
in the suit the plaintiff-petitioner intended to seek the relief of partition of
the suit property by metes and bounds but inadvertently in the head note as
well as in the prayer clause the said fact was not mentioned. However, the
same finds pleaded in the body of the plaint. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff-petitioner would further contend that no further evidence is required
to be led in this regard.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-
respondent nos.8 to 27 states that he has no objection if the application filed
by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint is allowed.
In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the
defendant-respondent nos.8 to 27, the present revision petition is allowed.
The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside and, consequently,
the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
for amendment of the plaint (Annexure P-3) stands allowed.
The present revision petition is disposed off in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
31.08.2022 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR
2022.09.01 14:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
Chandigarh
