Lekh Ram And Ors vs Rajkali And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 15241 P&H

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                            233                                          CR No.6104 of 2016
                                                                         Date of Decision : 29.11.2022

                            Lekh Ram and Others                                              ....Petitioners

                                                              VERSUS

                            Rajkali and Others                                            .....Respondents

                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                            Present :    Mr. J.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.

                                         Mr. J.S. Ghuman, Advocate for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4.

                            ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India challenging order dated 10.08.2016 (Annexure

P-11) vide which the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for amendment of the plaint has

been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners would contend that

forcible possession of the suit land has been taken from the plaintiff-

petitioners by the defendant-respondents on 24.07.2016. The plaintiff-

petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC which is

pending and no decision has been taken on the same. It is further the

contention that police complaints were made on 23.07.2016 requesting for

police protection since the defendant-respondents were alleged to have been

threatening to take possession of the suit land from the plaintiff-petitioners.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners would further contend that the

reasoning given by the Trial Court while dismissing the application is that

the act and conduct of the party shows that they are not in a hurry to get back JITENDER KUMAR 2022.11.30 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and their possession. It is further the contention that in fact the Trial Court is integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

recognizing the fact that possession of the plaintiff-petitioners has been taken

from them during the pendency of the suit. In view thereof, the amendment

of the plaint ought to have been allowed.

Per contra learned counsel for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 has

contended that the application has rightly been rejected inasmuch as the

application has been filed only to fill in the lacuna in the case as set up by the

plaintiff-petitioners. It is further the contention that the entire story has been

set up in a pre-planned manner inasmuch as on 23.07.2016 an application

was filed for protection and, thereafter, it is alleged that on 24.07.2016 the

possession was taken by the defendant-respondents. It is further contended

that allowing the application would change the nature of the suit.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the present case the impugned order dated 10.08.2016 is

bereft of any reasoning as to why the application under Order VI Rule 17

CPC has been dismissed except that it has been noticed that the act and

conduct of the party shows that they are not in a hurry to get their possession

back. The same cannot be a ground for dismissing the application. In the

present case the plaintiff-petitioners are alleging that possession has been

taken by the defendant-respondents during the pendency of the suit on

24.07.2016. Immediately thereafter, on 03.08.2016, an application for

amendment of the plaint was filed. The Trial Court is expected to deal with

the application on merits, which has not been done in the present case.

In view thereof, the impugned order dated 10.08.2016 is set

aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide the application under Order VI

JITENDER KUMAR 2022.11.30 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

Rule 17 CPC afresh, on merits. Any observation made in this order shall not

be treated as an expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case.

The present revision petition stands disposed off in the above

terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

                                                                                       ( ALKA SARIN )
                            29.11.2022                                                     JUDGE
                            jk

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

JITENDER KUMAR 2022.11.30 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh