Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Singh Sidhu vs Ramandeep Kaur & Others on 10 March, 2025
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033457
CR-1404-2025 [1]
124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1404-2025
Date of decision: 10.03.2025
Davinder Singh Sidhu
...Petitioner
Versus
Ramandeep Kaur and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh Makkar, Advocate and
Mr. Gopal Baghla, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure
P-6) passed by the trial Court whereby an application for amendment of the
plaint filed by the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 has been allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, the amendment has been allowed at the stage when the
evidence of both the parties has been concluded. It is submitted that after
passing of the impugned order dated 16.12.2024, the respondents No.1 and 2
have not paid the costs and for the said purpose, he has referred to the zimni
order dated 18.02.2025, a copy of which has been handed over to this Court
during the course of arguments and is taken on record as Mark "A". It is
submitted that the amendment has been made for the purpose of delaying the
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033457
CR-1404-2025 [2]
proceedings and thus, the application for amendment is not bona fide and
deserves to be dismissed and impugned order dated 16.12.2024 deserves to
be set aside.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has
perused the paper book and finds that impugned order passed by the trial
Court is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the revision
petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated
hereinafter.
4. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the
daughters of Amarjit Singh, had filed the suit for declaration to the effect
that they were owners in equal share and were entitled to possession of land
measuring 106 kanals 6 sarsahi which was stated to be 2/3rd share in land
measuring 159 kanals 1 marla (the details of the land have been given in the
plaint). The case set up by respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs was that
Amarjit Singh was the admitted owner of the suit property and they were his
natural heirs and the present petitioner, who is the son of brother of Amarjit
Singh, had no right in the suit property. The present petitioner had claimed
the suit property on the basis of an unregistered Will which was stated to
have been executed by Amarjit Singh in favour of the petitioner and other
persons and it was the case of the petitioner that he had been bequeathed half
share in the suit property.
5. The application dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) was filed by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
in which it had been pleaded that plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 and 2 had no
real brother and after the death of their father, the present petitioner and his
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033457
CR-1404-2025 [3]
father, who was the real brother of Amarjit Singh, had been looking after the
affairs of the property and that respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs had never
participated in any work with respect to the said land and it was with the
help of close relatives that they had collected the record and filed the suit. It
was specifically stated in the said application that respondent Nos.1 and 2
had, after filing of the suit, come to know that Halqa Patwari had not
provided the complete record of the landed property of Amarjit Singh to the
plaintiffs and they had now come to know that there were other lands which
were owned by Amarjit Singh and mutation with respect to some of the said
lands had been sanctioned, which also respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs
wanted to challenge. It was stated that same would not change the nature of
the suit as the entire case is based on natural succession/unregistered Will
and the evidence regarding the same had been led by the parties. The said
application was opposed by the petitioner.
6. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.12.2024 had
allowed the said application and while allowing the said application, had
observed that same would help in avoiding multiplicity of litigation and
would also not change the nature of the suit as the stand of both the parties
would remain the same. It was observed that it was the case of respondent
Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs that they being daughters of Amarjit Singh were
claiming to be the owners and were also praying for possession on the basis
of natural inheritance whereas the claim of the present petitioner and
defendant No.2 was based on the unregistered Will dated 08.09.2014 and
also on an exchange between defendant Nos.2 and 3.
7. The said order dated 16.12.2024 is in accordance with law and
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033457
CR-1404-2025 [4]
deserves to be upheld.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and
others Vs. K.K. Modi and others', reported as (2006) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 385 has specifically observed that the cardinal principle for allowing
an amendment is to see as to whether the same is necessary to decide the real
dispute between the parties and at that stage, the Court should not go into the
correctness or falsity or the merits of the case in the amendment. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under: -
"xxx xxx xxx
18. As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or
cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide
whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real
dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be
allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the
contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without
deciding whether such an amendment is necessary have
expressed certain opinions and entered into a discussion on
merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the Court should
also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the
litigation, to preserve and safeguard the rights of both parties
and to subserve the ends of justice. It is settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court that the rule of amendment is
essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and
the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger
interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before
the Court.
19. While considering whether an application for amendment
should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into
the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment.
Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033457
CR-1404-2025 [5]
amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be
incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at
the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal
principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant
case.
xxx xxx xxx"
9. The amendment which had been allowed is necessary for the
proper and final adjudication of the case and would also avoid multiplicity
of litigation. It is not in dispute that the contesting claim of the parties would
remain the same. It is the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs that they
being daughters of Amarjit Singh are entitled to ownership and possession
of the suit property as well as other properties which are now sought to be
added on the basis of natural succession. The fact that the suit property and
other properties were owned by Amarjit Singh is not disputed. The claim set
up by the present petitioner-defendant No.1 is on the basis of unregistered
Will dated 08.09.2014. It is thus, apparent that the contesting claim of the
parties would remain the same, regarding which the evidence had already
been led and thus, the trial Court had rightly granted only one opportunity to
each of the parties to file their amended pleadings and additional
documentary evidence, if any.
10. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to the
effect that it is respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are trying to delay the
proceedings or that the amendment application has been moved after much
delay, does not call for setting aside the impugned order. A perusal of the
application dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) would show that it is the case
of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that it was after due search that they had come to
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033457
CR-1404-2025 [6]
know about other properties of their father and there is nothing on record to
suggest that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had prior knowledge of the said
properties. There was no reason for respondent Nos.1 and 2 to not include
the said properties in the original suit in case of them having knowledge
about the same. Moreover, the averments made in the application (Annexure
P-3) also inspire confidence.
11. On a pointed query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the
petitioner has fairly submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not in
possession of the property and that the present petitioner is in possession and
respondent Nos.1 and 2 have in fact sought that they are entitled to
possession and thus, the question of respondent Nos.1 and 2 wanting to
delay the proceedings would not arise, as any delay in the proceedings
would primarily prejudice respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are seeking
ownership and possession. With respect to the subsequent delay by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 after passing of the impugned order, it would be
suffice to note that even a perusal of the present revision petition would
show that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the amended plaint (Annexure
P-5) immediately after the passing of the impugned order and a perusal of
the order dated 18.02.2025 would show that it is the present petitioner who
has not filed the written statement to the amended plaint and as has been
fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same has not been
filed till date whereas the matter is now listed for 13.03.2025.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shalini Shyam
Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil", reported as (2010) 8
Supreme Court Cases 329, had observed that the High Courts cannot, at the
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:033457
CR-1404-2025 [7]
drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227
of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to
it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the
orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was also observed in the said
judgment that a statutory amendment with respect to Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's
power under Article 227 but at the same time, it must be remembered that
such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High
Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. The power of
interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that
the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the
functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. It was
also observed that the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its
exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline.
13. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
impugned order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and
deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless,
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.
10.03.2025 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
7 of 7
