Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daropadi Alias Daropdi vs Ram Prakash And Others on 10 March, 2025
CR-1428-2025 (O&M) Page 1 of 5
IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
115 CR-1428-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.03.2025
Daropadi @ Daropdi ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Ram Parkash and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. H.K.Aurora, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The plaintiff has filed the present petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned orders
dated 20.12.2023, 18.5.2024 and 19.11.2024 (Annexures P-1 to P-3)
passed by the ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar whereby the
application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint, has been
dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the
learned trial Court is in error in passing the impugned orders, as only a
short correction/amendment was required in the present case which
would not have altered the nature of the suit. It is submitted that
inadvertently, the petitioner had filed the present suit seeking mesne
profits and damages against the respondents for illegal use and
occupation of the suit land stated to be measuring 40K 2M; whereas in
actual fact, the defendants/respondents are liable to pay mesne profits
and damages for the land measuring only 12K 14 M. It is submitted that
accordingly, petitioner had filed the present application for amendment of
the plaint, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. It is
accordingly prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.
3. No other argument is raised on behalf of the
petitioner/plaintiff.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and
perused the case file in great detail.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed suit for
possession against the defendants which was decreed by the Id. Trial Court
vide judgment and decree dt. 17.8.2007. The appeal filed by the
respondent was dismissed by the Id. Lower Appellate Court; and even the
RSA No.763 of 2012 filed by the respondent was dismissed by this Court
vide order dt. 17.1.2020 (Annexure P-4). Vide the above said concurrent
judgment and decree, Gurbachan Lal/ defendant No.1, was directed to
hand over the possession of suit land measuring 12 Kanals 14 marlas to the
plaintiffs. However, Gurbachan Lal and his legal representative delivered the
possession of suit land only in execution proceedings during the pendency
of RSA. Both the Courts found the Gurbachan Lal to be in unauthorised
possession. The present respondents are the legal heirs of Gurbachan Lal.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed the present suit on
15.10.2016 for mesne profits and damages against the respondents for
illegal use and occupation of the above-mentioned suit land. It is the case of
the petitioner that inadvertently, he had claimed mesne profits qua total
land measuring 40K 2M instead of the decreed land measuring 12K 14M.
7. I find no merit in the arguments raised by the petitioner. It is an
admitted fact on record that issues were framed by the learned trial Court
vide order dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure P-6); the evidence of the
plaintiff/petitioner was closed on 23.02.2023; evidence of the defendants
stood closed on 14.09.2023; whereafter the present application for
amendment of suit was filed by the petitioner on 17.10.2023 (Annexure P-
7). The petitioner, therefore, had moved the present application at the fag
end of the case. In this background, vide order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure
P-1), the learned trial Court has correctly dismissed the above said
application holding the same to be vague and baseless filed with a view to
delay the proceedings. Needless to say, the petitioner was very well aware
of the decreed land; and has clearly failed to exercise due diligence. In this
situation, petitioner could not have been allowed to amend the plaint as
that would amount to changing the nature of the suit.
8. Against the order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure P-1), the
petitioner filed a review application which was inadvertently shown to be
'allowed' by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division vide order dated
18.05.2024 (Annexure P-2). Accordingly, an application was filed by
defendant No.1 to rectify the said order dated 18.05.2024. An application
was also filed by the petitioner for submission of the amended plaint as the
order dated 18.05.2024 revealed that review had been allowed. Vide
impugned order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-3), both the above said
applications, were disposed of by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Jalandhar in the following terms:-
"7. From the tone and tenor of the above said order as
reproduced above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
reasoned order has been passed by the Predecessor of this
Court specifying that Court cannot review its own order or
judgment merely because the parties are dissatisfied with it or
because it has been discovered that another view could have
been taken on the same facts and evidence. Further, Court has
stated that power of review can only be exercised where there
seems error or mistake that needs to be rectified. Accordingly,
from the tone, tenor and essence of the order it can be seen to
have an intent to be dismissed. The said application however
due to inadvertent typographical error was allowed as
mentioned in the said order. Further, intention of the Court can
also be seen from the zimni order dated 18.05.2024 vide which
after disposing of the said application of review, the Court fixed
the case for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff and not for filing
amended plaint by the plaintiff, which would have been the
case, in case the Court had the intention to allow the said
review application.
8. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this
Court is of the opinion that an inadvertent and technical error
cannot be allowed to prejudice the defendant No. 1 and lead to
a de novo trial. Accordingly. application filed by the defendant
No. 1 is hereby disposed of with the direction that technical
error stating the review application to be 'allowed' in order
dated 18.05.2024 be read as 'dismissed' in view of the tone
and tenor of the said order passed by the Predecessor of this
Court. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion and order,
the application filed by the plaintiff for submission of amended
Plaint as the order reveals that review has been allowed as per
order dated 18.5.2024 by the predecessor Court stands
dismissed."
9. Keeping in view the above facts, no ground to interfere in the
impugned orders is made out. The present civil revision petition is hereby
dismissed.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
10.03.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
