Judgment:
Civil Revision No.83 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.83 of 2014 Date of Decision:10.01.2014 Shanti and another .....Petitioners Versus Daya Nand @ Lila and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.**** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The challenge in this revision petition, filed by petitioneRs.defendant Nos.4 and 5-Shanti wife of, and Krishan son of Bharthu, is to the impugned order dated 17.12.2013(Annexure P-3).by virtue of which, the trial Court has allowed the application and permitted Daya Nand @ Lila-respondent, LRs of original plaintiff-Nihala son of Bhopa, to amend the plaint.
Aggrieved thereby, they preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
3.
As is evident from the record that, the trial Court has permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by means of impugned order dated 17.12.2013(Annexure P-3).which in substance is as under:- “In the considered view of this Court, the circumstances of the case are that this suit was filed and after filing of written statement, an application for amendment of written statement was filed to take the plea that the suit Rani Seema 2014.01.17 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.83 of 2014 2 is bad on account of partial partition, the application was allowed and thereafter plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC to withdraw the suit with the permission to file a fresh suit.
The suit was dismissed as withdrawn with necessary permission.
Appeal was filed and case was remanded back with a direction to this court to decide the application under Order 23 rule 3 CPC on merits.
While that application is pending, the instant application has been filed.
Circumstances of the case are that due to these applications, case was not put to trial and real controveRs.between the parties could not be decided.
This is a suit for partition.
If the instant application is not allowed, plaintiff's suit will be bad on account of partial partition.
Actually plaintiffs should have corrected this mistake by filing a replication to the amended written statement but the same could not be done and plaintiffs should not be punished for this mistake as such a punishment will be unfair and disproportionate to the mistake committed.
By allowing this application, neither the nature of the suit will change nor any serious loss to defendants will occur.
The maximum that will happen is that suit will be decided on merits.
It is a settled-proposition of law as held by authorities relied upon by learned counsel for plaintiffs that amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controveRs.between the parties.
This is a fit case where application should be allowed in the interest of justice to determine real controveRs.between the parties.
Accordingly, the application in hand is allowed with costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants for delay caused in filing the application.”
.
4.
Meaning thereby, the proposed amendment is essential to decide the real controveRs.between the parties.
Moreover, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this regard.
Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perveRs.and without jurisdiction.
As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.therefore, the impugned order(Annexure P-3) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
5.
In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.
January 10, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.01.17 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh