Satbir Vs. Zile Singh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1062516
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-17-2013
AppellantSatbir
RespondentZile Singh and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cr no.2699 of 201.date of decision :17. h july 201 satbir …. petitioner versus zile singh & others …. respondents coram : hon’ble mr.justice l.n.mittal **** present : mr.lokesh sinhal, advocate for the petitioner. **** l.n.mittal, j. (oral) defendant no.2-satbir has filed this revision petition under article 227 of the constitution of india impugning order dated 15.04.2013 annexure p-4 passed by learned trial court thereby dismissing application annexure p-3 filed by defendant no.2-petitiner for amendment of written statement annexure p-2 filed jointly on behalf of defendants no.1 and 2. the petitioner alleged in his amendment application annexure p-3 that defendant no.1, who is real brother of defendant no.2-petitioner, obtained signatures of defendant no.2 on some blank papers as well as blank printed vakalatnama on assurance that the suit would be defended. but the petitioner on engaging his separate counsel and on inspection of file learnt that defendant no.1 in collusion with plaintiffs has fraudulently filed written statement on behalf of defendant no.2 as well on blank signed cr no.2699 of 2013 - 2- papers and thereby admitted the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit. defendant no.2 not wants to completely substitute the written statement annexure p-2 with fresh written statement as reproduced in the amendment application with a view to contest the suit hotly. the plaintiffs contested the amendment application filed by defendant no.2 and controverted the averments made in the said application. learned trial court vide impugned annexure p-4 has dismissed the amendment application filed by defendant no.2 who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to assail the said order. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. counsel for the petitioner reiterated the version stated in the amendment application as noticed hereinbefore. however, the same cannot be accepted to permit the petitioner to substitute a new written statement in place of the original written statement. there is no reason why defendant no.1 would commit fraud with his own brother defendant no.2 in order to help the plaintiffs who are strangers.mere assertion of the petitioner in his amendment application in this regard cannot be accepted at face value. defendant no.2 cannot be permitted to withdraw admission of claim of plaintiffs made in original written statement annexure p-2, by way of amendment thereof. if such plea as taken by the petitioner that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers and vakalatnama, is accepted to withdraw the admitted written statement with permission to file fresh cr no.2699 of 2013 - 3- contested written statement, then possibly no case would attain finality and litigants may commit fraud not only with the opposite party but also with the court. for the reasons aforesaid, i find no merit in this revision petition. the application for amendment of written statement has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of power of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution of india. the revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. 17th july, 2013 (l.n.mittal) ‘raj’ judge raj kumar 2013.07.18 20:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR NO.2699 OF 201.DATE OF DECISION :

17. h JULY 201 Satbir ….

Petitioner Versus Zile Singh & others ….

Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL **** Present : Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** L.N.MITTAL, J.

(ORAL) Defendant no.2-Satbir has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 15.04.2013 Annexure P-4 passed by learned trial Court thereby dismissing application Annexure P-3 filed by defendant no.2-petitiner for amendment of written statement Annexure P-2 filed jointly on behalf of defendants no.1 and 2.

The petitioner alleged in his amendment application Annexure P-3 that defendant no.1, who is real brother of defendant no.2-petitioner, obtained signatures of defendant no.2 on some blank papers as well as blank printed vakalatnama on assurance that the suit would be defended.

But the petitioner on engaging his separate counsel and on inspection of file learnt that defendant no.1 in collusion with plaintiffs has fraudulently filed written statement on behalf of defendant no.2 as well on blank signed CR No.2699 of 2013 - 2- papers and thereby admitted the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit.

Defendant no.2 not wants to completely substitute the written statement Annexure P-2 with fresh written statement as reproduced in the amendment application with a view to contest the suit hotly.

The plaintiffs contested the amendment application filed by defendant no.2 and controverted the averments made in the said application.

Learned trial Court vide impugned Annexure P-4 has dismissed the amendment application filed by defendant no.2 who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the version stated in the amendment application as noticed hereinbefore.

However, the same cannot be accepted to permit the petitioner to substitute a new written statement in place of the original written statement.

There is no reason why defendant no.1 would commit fraud with his own brother defendant no.2 in order to help the plaintiffs who are strangeRs.Mere assertion of the petitioner in his amendment application in this regard cannot be accepted at face value.

Defendant no.2 cannot be permitted to withdraw admission of claim of plaintiffs made in original written statement Annexure P-2, by way of amendment thereof.

If such plea as taken by the petitioner that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers and vakalatnama, is accepted to withdraw the admitted written statement with permission to file fresh CR No.2699 of 2013 - 3- contested written statement, then possibly no case would attain finality and litigants may commit fraud not only with the opposite party but also with the Court.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition.

The application for amendment of written statement has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.

Impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

17th July, 2013 (L.N.MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE Raj Kumar 2013.07.18 20:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh