Jugraj Singh vs Baljit Kaur And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 16467 P&H

    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

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