Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Chander And Ors vs Dharambir And Ors on 8 January, 2024
2024:PHHC:001344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-25-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision:08.01.2024
Ram Chander & others ... Petitioners
Vs.
Dharambir & others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
Present: Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate for the petitioners.
SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Kurukshetra, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to
replace the earlier written statement with the new written statement has
been dismissed.
2. Dharamvir filed a suit for declaration to the effect that
judgment and decree dated 09.02.1993 to the extent of para Nos.(D)
and (G) fully detailed in para No.6 of the plaint and impugned
mutations and subsequent revenue entries were illegal, null and void
being obtained by playing fraud, misleading and concealment of the
material facts and further the plaintiffs be declared as owners in
possession of 1/2 share of the suit land measuring 6 kanals 10 marlas
fully detailed in para No.6 of the plaint with a consequential
CR-25-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024: PHHC:001344
relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering in any manner in the peaceful ownership and possession of
plaintiffs over the land owned and possessed by them and also
restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the suit
land in question from the plaintiffs on the basis of impugned judgment
and revenue entries.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners/defendants
No.1 to 5 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for
permission to replace the earlier written statement with the new written
statement before the trial Court which was dismissed by the trial Court
vide impugned order dated 27.09.2023.
4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners
that the earlier written statement was filed by counsel for the petitioners
without taking the proper instructions from them and without knowing
the facts of the case. So it is necessary for the petitioners to replace the
earlier written statement with the new written statement. He has
submitted that the petitioners want to bring on record the true facts with
regard to transfer of excess land by deceased Hardevi in their favour
which are necessary for adjudication of the case and it will not cause
any prejudice to the respondents.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have
also gone through the record.
6. The petitioners filed their written statement in the year
2019 which was duly signed and verified by the defendants/petitioners.
CR-25-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024: PHHC:001344
Thereafter, the injunction application moved by the plaintiffs was also
decided vide order dated 20.12.2021 of the trial Court. Even then no
plea was raised by the defendants/petitioners regarding the said written
statement which had earlier been filed by their counsel that it was
without proper instructions from them. The application is also silent
qua the fact that what specific changes are to be incorporated in the
new written statement and as such the application is vague in nature.
7. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is a well
reasoned order and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason
to interfere with the impugned order by way of exercising the revisional
jurisdiction and finding no merit in the revision petition, the same
stands dismissed.
( SUKHVINDER KAUR )
JUDGE
08.01.2024
harjeet
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
