Judgment:
CR No.3629 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No.3629 of 2013 Date of decision July 25, 2013 Charanjit Singh ....... Petitioner Versus Onkar Singh and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. By an amendment brought after the transposition of one of the defendants as a co-plaintiff, an averment had been included in the plaint referring to particular mutations made in revenue entries on 31.5.1999 and on 9.3.2010 as null and void and ineffective against the right of second plaintiff. This addition, according to him, is a wholly new plea and it will cause a change in the cause of action. The objection is taken at the instance of the brother of the plaintiff.
2. I cannot find that any prejudice could be caused by this additional statement made to the amendment that the mutations effected in the year 1999 and 2010 are ineffective against the second plaintiff. Significantly the order of transposition of second Archana Arora 2013.07.29 17:18 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.3629 o”
2. respondent as a plaintiff itself is not in challenge. After a transposition if the co-plaintiff wants to make out a cause for securing a relief as a plaintiff, suitable changes in the averments could be always made so long as the nature of suit is not altered. The petitioner's contention is that the mutation is valid and it was effected on the basis of devolution of interest of the mother to him exclusively. Such a contention of the petitioner is very much available for him to state in defence, if it has not already been stated and to urge for a position that this amendment referring to the mutation was untenable and that second plaintiff cannot have such a contention established. So long as a right of defence is not in any way taken away not is any prejudice is likely to have resulted then I do not think that the trial court's order would require to be assailed.
3. The order impugned is maintained and the civil revision is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 25 , 2013 archana Archana Arora 2013.07.29 17:18 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh