Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish vs Sher Singh Deceased Through His Lrs And ... on 24 January, 2025
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010912
CR-468-2025(O&M)
-1-
118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-468-2025(O&M)
Date of decision:-24.01.2025
Jagdish
...Petitioner
Versus
Sher Singh (now deceased) through his LRs and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present : Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
CM-1351-CII-2025
1. For the reasons given in the application, it is allowed.
2. Legal heirs of deceased - respondent No.1 are ordered to be
brought on record.
MAIN CASE
3. By way of the present revision petition, petitioner - plaintiff
has assailed order dated 19.11.2024, Annexure P9, passed by learned
Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Gohana, District Sonipat, whereby an
application, Annexure P7, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for the
amendment of the plaint has been declined.
4. Counsel submits that the petitioner filed a suit for
declaration with consequential relief of possession and permanent
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010912
CR-468-2025(O&M)
injunction claiming share in coparcenary property and upon notice,
respondents filed replies contesting the suit. They took up a plea that
Sarup Singh, grandfather of the petitioner had executed a Will dated
25.09.1970 and also transferred some share of the total suit property by
way of a judgment and decree dated 25.02.1972 in favour of some of the
respondents. Asserting that as the petitioner was not aware of these
facts, an application, Annexure P7, was filed for the amendment of the
plaint to challenge both the Will and the earlier judgment and decree,
which has been erroneously declined by the Trial Court. It is his
argument that the amendments, which are self explanatory and would
not result in the changing the nature of the suit, deserve to be
incorporated. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Versus Suman Agarwal
(Bindal) & Ors., 2024 SCC Online 2615 and Life Insurance
Corporation of India Versus Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.,
2022 SCC Online 1128.
5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered his
submissions.
6. The suit, Annexure P1, filed by the petitioner is being
contested by the respondents, who filed separate written statements,
which are appended at Annexures P2 to P6, with the petition. In their
written statements, they have taken a common stand that Sarup Singh
had executed a Will on 25.09.1970 bequeathing the property to his four
sons in equal share and 1/4th share devolved upon Sher Singh,
petitioner's father. Property was mutated in favour of all the four
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010912
CR-468-2025(O&M)
descendants in terms of the Will. Respondent No.1, who is the father of
the petitioner, in his separate written statement had inter alia averred that
he had disposed off the property, which fell to his share with the prior
consultation of the petitioner to meet the expenses of the education and
other expenses of the petitioner as well as his siblings. It was averred that
the petitioner had completed B.Tech Civil from Gulburga University in
the year 1993 and all the educational expenses were borne by respondent
No.1. In the year 1994. Suman, sister of the petitioner, who completed
B.Ed. was married out of the sale proceeds of the land. Petitioner's
mother is pleaded to be a cancer patient, who is undergoing treatment
from Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, Rohini and all the expenses are
being met by respondent No.1 without getting any financial assistance
from the petitioner, who is residing separately with his wife in
Gurugram. In order to meet the financial exigencies, the inherited
property was disposed off by way of sale and a relinquishing deed,
which is valid.
7. Even though the written statement had been filed by the
respondents in the year 2017/2018, petitioner did not take any step to
amend the plaint and an application for amendment is moved in August,
2024. A perusal of the application, Annexure P7, shows that the
petitioner claims that upon coming to know of these events from the
written statement, he made inquiries from the revenue authorities, but
this assertion is not supported by any document. No explanation,
whatsoever, has been given for the delay of seven years in moving an
application for alteration of the plaint. Not only this, by virtue of the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010912
CR-468-2025(O&M)
amendment, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the Will as well as the
mutation and subsequent revenue entries, which will displace the case
set up by the petitioner in the plaint and would completely change the
nature of the suit, which is impermissible. There is no due diligence on
the part of the petitioner. Furthermore, in the garb of this amendment,
petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge a Will and a judgment and
decree, which was passed more than five decades earlier. In Dinesh
Goyal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
though amendments should generally be allowed, but if the amendment
raises a time barred claim resulting in divesting the other side of a
valuable accrued right, amendment should be disallowed. This Court is
of the view that as the petitioner is trying to raise a claim, which has
become stale and is hopelessly barred by time, the application,
Annexure P7, has been rightly rejected. There is no error in the
impugned order nor does it call for any interference.
8. Finding no merit in the petition, which is devoid of merit, it
is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
24.01.2025 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
