Punjab-Haryana High Court
Preet Harjinder Singh vs Lakhbir Singha And Anr on 19 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163052
127 2023:PHHC:163052
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2921 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.12.2023
Preet Harjinder Singh
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Lakhbir Singh and Another
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Sharad Mehra, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. Despite service of notice, the respondent No.1 has not entered
appearance. This revision petition has been filed to challenge the correctness
of the interlocutory order passed by the trial Court on 11.05.2022, while
dismissing the plaintiff's application for permission to amend the plaint in
order to seek relief of possession of the property. The trial Court has
dismissed the application on the ground that after the commencement of the
trial, it will not be appropriate to allow the amendment. The Court has also
found that the at the time of filing of the suit, the defendant was already in
possession but he did not seek the relief of possession of the aforementioned
land.
2. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that
the plaintiff has prayed for permission to amend the plaint in order to amend
the prayer clause to seek proper relief. The learned counsel submits that the
plaintiff has already sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163052
2023:PHHC:163052
respondent No.1 to demolish or remove the wall which, in substance, means
that the petitioner prays for the relief of possession.
3. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the petitioner. In the month of June 2020, while filing
the suit, the plaintiff prayed for the following relief:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that a decree of permanent
injunction to the effect that the defendant no.1 be restrained
from interfering into the peaceful and lawful possession of the
plaintiff out of khasra number 20//21/2(6-4) and further be
restrained from encroaching excess area of 07 feet from the
western side towards northern side from point C to D which is
beyond 02 kanals 10 marlas (50 marlas) (62 x 220 already sold
by plaintiff to defendant no.1) as per the site plan dated
09.06.2020 thereby constructing wall out of land bearing
khewat number 1/1, khatouni no.2, comprised in khasra
number 20//21/2(6-4), as recorded in the jamabandi for the
year 2016-17, situated in the revenue estate of village Behla,
Tehsil and District Tarn Taran, forcibly and illegally otherwise
than in due course of law; and a decree for mandatory
injunction directing the defendant no.1 to demolish/remove the
wall which is 7 feet in breadth towards western side and 85 feet
in length towards northern side from point A to B as shown red
in the site plan dated 09.06.2020 as the same has been
constructed illegally by encroaching excess area of 07 feet of
the land of the plaintiff i.e. 69 feet instead of 62 feet out of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163052
2023:PHHC:163052
khasra number 20//21/2(6-4) as detailed above, which is
bounded as under: North - Agricultural land of plaintiff, South
- Daburji Road, East - Agricultural land of plaintiff, West -
Agricultural land of plaintiff as fully detailed in the site plan
dated 09.06.2020 and photographs of the existing position
prevailing at the spot, may kindly be ordered to be passed in
favour of the plaintiff against the defendants with costs in the
interest of justice, equity and fairplay. Any other relief to which
the learned court may deem fit be also granted to the plaintiff
under the law and equity."
4. It is evident that the prayer clause is divided in two parts. The
second part of the prayer clause is with regard to passing a decree for
mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 to demolish/remove the
wall which is 7 feet in breadth towards the Western side and 85 feet in length
towards the Northern side from point A to B. From the reading of the plaint,
it is evident that the plaintiff has alleged that the aforesaid area has been
encroached upon by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff has already sought
relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 to remove the
encroachment. By way of amendment, the plaintiff only wants to make a
proper prayer in order to avoid any technical objection being raised in future.
While dismissing the application, the trial Court has taken a narrow view
which does not advance the cause of justice. There are various types of
amendments in the pleadings. Certain amendments are only formal in nature
that are sought in order to correct the inadvertent mistakes or correct the
prayer clause. Such amendments should be allowed in order to decide the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163052
2023:PHHC:163052
case on merits. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment in Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and
Another 2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 4256.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present revision petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 11.05.2022 is set aside. The plaintiff
shall be permitted to amend the prayer clause. Thereafter, the trial Court
shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
6. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
December 19, 2023
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163052
4 of 4
