Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Kaur And Another vs Gurmit Kaur And Others on 13 May, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
-1-
CR-2738-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
125 CR-2738-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on : 06.05.2024
Pronounced on : 13.05.2024
MANDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
VERSUS
GURMIT KAUR AND OTHERS ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated
02.04.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh
Sahib whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners under Order
VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-
petitioners filed a suit under Sections 34 and 35 of the Specific Relief Act
for a declaration to the effect that the suit property, as fully described in the
plaint by letters 'A' to 'F', was ancestral and co-parcenary and joint family
property of the plaintiff-petitioners and the defendant-respondents. They also
filed a suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1993 passed in
Civil Suit 751 dated 14.09.1993 as being illegal, null and void and further
for permanent injunction. A written statement was filed by the defendant-
respondents wherein it was specifically stated that the suit property situated
in Village Mandlan as mentioned at letter 'E' in the heading of the plaint
integrity of this judgment/order.
CR-2738-2024
came to the hands of the defendant-respondents through Dalbara Singh son
of Arjan Singh by way of a decree of the Civil Court passed in the year 1990
and the remaining property was received by the defendant-respondents
through transfer deeds. Thereafter, the issues were framed and the evidence
was led by the parties. Subsequently, an application was filed by the
plaintiff-petitioners for amendment of the plaint averring in the application
that inadvertently the relief of setting aside the judgment and decree dated
19.11.1990 suffered by Dalbara Singh in favour of defendant-respondents
could not be sought qua property 'F' and now the plaintiff-petitioners want to
challenge the said judgment and decree and add property 'F' to the present
suit. It has been averred in the application that despite due diligence the
plaintiff-petitioners could not challenge the said judgment and decree and
that the said fact came to the notice of the plaintiff-petitioners only when
certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1990 were tendered
in evidence by the defendant-respondents. A reply was filed to the said
application. Vide impugned order the said application was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners would contend that
the plaintiff-petitioners could not bring on record the said pleading despite
due diligence and that it was only when the evidence was led by the
defendant-respondents and the certified copies of the judgment and decree
dated 19.11.1990 were produced that the said fact came to the notice of the
plaintiff-petitioners and thereupon an application for amendment of the
plaint was filed.
4. Heard.
integrity of this judgment/order.
CR-2738-2024
5. In the present case the factum of the decree passed in the year
1990 was specifically pleaded in the written statement. When the matter was
at the fag end and fixed for rebuttal evidence, the application for amendment
of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners. Though learned counsel
for the plaintiff-petitioners has stated that he would not lead any further
evidence, however, once the said judgment and decree is permitted to be
challenged at this stage, the same would amount to a de novo trial. The
application itself is bereft as to why the challenge was not laid to the said
judgment and decree when the same specifically stood referred to in the
written statement. Further still, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners
has not been able to convince this Court that the said judgment and decree
were not reflected in the revenue record and hence it was not within their
knowledge. The suit was filed on the basis of the revenue record pertaining
to the ownership of the defendant-respondents and their parents over the suit
property. No other argument has been raised.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
13.05.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this judgment/order.
