May Have to Be Introduced to Support Such Prayers. This Would Naturally Vs. Sher Singh and Another

May Have to Be Introduced to Support Such Prayers. This Would Naturally vs Sher Singh and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 21, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1128708

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1128708
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Feb 21, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

May Have to Be Introduced to Support Such Prayers. This Would Naturally

Respondent

Sher Singh and Another

Excerpt

.....the application for amending the counter-claim has been dismissed by the trial court. the amendment sought was to introduce the prayer for mandatory injunction in the counter claim/cross suit. amendments of this kind ought to be liberally permitted since they have little to do with facts. the courts have time and again spoken that a liberal view be adopted, especially in cases of filing written statement so that all disputes perceived by the parties are adjudicated on merits. the trial court has erred in holding that the prayer for amending the written statement to introduce the prayer of mandatory injunction was a fact which the petitioners failed to take despite due diligence. the concept of due diligence has no place in this case. if the prayer for mandatory injunction is to be allowed, then it follows that certain new facts may have to be introduced to support such prayers.this would naturally khan md.firoz 2014.02.24 14:22 follow as the petitioners are defendants in the counter claim which is in the i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh cr no.1319 of 2014 :2: nature of a suit. then they become a master of their counter claim just as a plaintiff, and therefore, they should be permitted the amendment if it is not barred by any limitation etc.for this reason, no notice is required to be issued to the plaintiffs/respondents or to hear them which would in any case lead to wastage of time of the court. for these reasons, this petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 14.1.2014 (annexure p-2) passed by the learned civil judge (jr.division).mahendergarh is set aside. the amendment is permitted to be carried out in the written statement/counter-claim and thereafter the suit to proceed. (rajiv narain raina) judge212.2014 mfk khan md.firoz 2014.02.24 14:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1319 of 2014 Date of Decision: 21.2.2014 Rajbir Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Sher Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present : Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

(Oral) This is defendants' petition assailing the order dated 14.1.2014 (P-2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division).Mahendergarh.

The application for amending the counter-claim has been dismissed by the trial court.

The amendment sought was to introduce the prayer for mandatory injunction in the counter claim/cross suit.

Amendments of this kind ought to be liberally permitted since they have little to do with facts.

The Courts have time and again spoken that a liberal view be adopted, especially in cases of filing written statement so that all disputes perceived by the parties are adjudicated on merits.

The trial court has erred in holding that the prayer for amending the written statement to introduce the prayer of mandatory injunction was a fact which the petitioners failed to take despite due diligence.

The concept of due diligence has no place in this case.

If the prayer for mandatory injunction is to be allowed, then it follows that certain new facts may have to be introduced to support such prayeRs.This would naturally Khan Md.Firoz 2014.02.24 14:22 follow as the petitioners are defendants in the counter claim which is in the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh CR No.1319 of 2014 :2: nature of a suit.

Then they become a master of their counter claim just as a plaintiff, and therefore, they should be permitted the amendment if it is not barred by any limitation etc.For this reason, no notice is required to be issued to the plaintiffs/respondents or to hear them which would in any case lead to wastage of time of the court.

For these reasons, this petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 14.1.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division).Mahendergarh is set aside.

The amendment is permitted to be carried out in the written statement/counter-claim and thereafter the suit to proceed.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE212.2014 MFK Khan Md.Firoz 2014.02.24 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties May Have to Be Introduced to Support Such Prayers. This Would... Same Subject Land Acquisition