Full Judgment
CR No.103 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.103 of 2010 Date of Decision:09.09.2013.
Prem Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Sarabjit Singh and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1 Whether reporters of the 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?.
Present: Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents.
**** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
(Oral) Instant civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to call for and examine records and set aside the order dated 11.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Divn.).Rajpura whereby application for amendment of written statement filed by the petitioners-defendants has been dismissed.
Kumar Parveen 2013.09.12 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.103 o”
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present case are that respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for declaration claiming themselves as owners in possession in coparcenary property to the extent of certain share.
The suit was filed in the year 2004.
During pendency of civil suit, there was an amendment in the Hindu Succession Act whereby daughters/females have been included in the definition of coparceneRs.In view of this, the petitioners-defendants wants to raise an objection that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Only to that extent, the petitioner wants to make the amendment in the written statement.
Vide impugned order dated 11.12.2009, the trial Court has dismissed the application for amendment observing that the amendment sought is after the commencement of proceedings, the case is at the fag end and in view of amendment in Code of Civil Procedure, the amendment in written statement cannot be allowed.
Hence, this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It appears that the Court has not taken into consideration the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after amendment which lays down that amendment can be allowed in certain circumstances even at belated stage.
Here is a case where due to amendment in Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005, females/daughters have been declared to be coparceneRs.The petitioner also wants to raise objection that daughter of defendant no.6-Ram Kishan is also necessary party in civil suit.
The amendment sought is necessary for proper adjudication of the Kumar Parveen 2013.09.12 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.103 o”
3. dispute as the right of daughter in the coparcenary property has to be determined, therefore, she is necessary and proper party.
Amendment in Hindu Succession Act is a subsequent event and cannot be said to be in the knowledge of the petitioneRs.Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will not raise any objection, if the respondents-plaintiffs want to file any rejoinder to the amended written statement.
In case, the petitioneRs.defendants lead fresh evidence, the plaintiffs will have right to rebut the evidence.
No prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff.
In view of above, the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 is set aside and the petitioners are directed to file amended written statement on the date fixed.
However, the respondents-plaintiffs will be at liberty to file rejoinder to the amended written statement and avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
Since the case is old, trial Court shall make endeavour to dispose of suit as early as possible.
Disposed of.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge 9th September, 2013 parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2013.09.12 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh