Waryam Singh & Ors vs Bakhshish Singh & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 1494 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Waryam Singh & Ors vs Bakhshish Singh & Anr on 28 January, 2025

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                     105



                               In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                     1.                       Regular Second Appeal No. 1725 of 1993 (O&M)


                     Waryam Singh (Deceased) through his Legal Representatives and Others

                                                                                   ... Appellant(s)

                                                        Versus

                     Bakhshish Singh and Others
                                                                                 ... Respondent(s)

                                                         AND

                     2.                                Regular Second Appeal No. 1276 of 1993


                     Bakhshish Singh

                                                                                   ... Appellant(s)

                                                        Versus

                     Waryam Singh (Deceased) through his Legal Representatives and Others

                                                                                 ... Respondent(s)

                                          DATE OF DECISION: 28.01.2025

                     CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

                     Present:      Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate
                                   for the appellant No.1 (In RSA-1725-1993) and
                                   for the respondent No.1 (In RSA-1276-1993).

                                   Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate
                                   for Mr. Sukhjeet Singh Brar, Advocate
                                   for the appellant (In RSA-1276-1993) and
                                   for the respondents (In RSA-1725-1993).

                     Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. These two cross regular second appeals are pending for the last

32 years. Originally, Bakhshish Singh filed a suit for recovery of ₹2,52,000/-

2025.01.30 10:20 against Waryam Singh, Harinder Singh alias Hari Singh, Basawa Singh,

Regular Second Appeal No. 1725 of 1993 (O&M) AND 2 Regular Second Appeal No. 1276 of 1993

Surinder Singh alias Bug and Pritpal Singh for causing injuries to him as

well as his son on 11.03.1983. The suit was filed along with an application

for permission to sue as an indigent person which was dismissed.

Subsequently, the plaintiff deposited the court fee for claiming damages to

the extent of ₹1,50,000/-. In a criminal case, all the defendants were

convicted. In the civil suit, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to

₹60,000/- as compensation.

2. Aggrieved against the Trial Court's judgment, both the parties

filed the first appeals, respectively. The plaintiff filed an appeal for

enhancement of the compensation, whereas in their appeal, the defendants

claimed that the Trial Court's judgment is wrong. In the meantime, the

appeal filed by the defendants against their conviction was allowed on

13.03.1987. It was held that the defendants were exercising their right to

private defence to their property.

3. During the pendency of their first appeal, the defendants filed

an application to amend the written statement which was dismissed on the

ground that the defendants have pleaded a new defence which is contrary to

the original defence because they denied causing any injuries to the plaintiff

and his son. Thereafter, the First Appellate Court reduced the amount of

compensation to ₹40,000/-.

4. As already noticed, both the appeals were admitted and have

come up for hearing after 42 years.

5. The learned counsel representing the defendants submits that

the compensation amount of ₹40,000/- has already been deposited and

2025.01.30 10:20 withdrawn by the plaintiff.

Regular Second Appeal No. 1725 of 1993 (O&M) AND 3 Regular Second Appeal No. 1276 of 1993

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the plaintiff

submits that the amount of ₹40,000/- needs to be scaled up as the defendants

had caused injuries to the plaintiff as well as his son.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the

defendants claims that the First Appellate Court has erred in dismissing their

application for amendment of the written statement.

8. After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties,

this Court is of the considered view that the matter is required to be closed

particularly when ₹40,000/- has already been paid and a period of 42 years

has passed. If the defendants' application is allowed to amend the plaint, the

Court will have to re-open the entire case.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to

interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.

Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.

8. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in both the

appeals shall stand disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge January 28, 2025 "DK"

                               Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
                               Whether reportable             : Yes/No