Chima Devi Alias Seema Devi and Others Vs. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1126341
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-11-2014
AppellantChima Devi Alias Seema Devi and Others
Excerpt:
cr no.1051 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh (119) cr no.1051 of 2014 date of decision:11.02.2014 chima devi alias seema devi and others ......petitioners versus jitender kumar and others .......respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.j.s.chahal, advocate for the petitioners.**** sabina, j. petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 02.01.2014 (annexure p-1).whereby application moved by the petitioners for permission to amend the plaint, was dismissed. learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, due to inadvertence, in the pleadings the petitioners had failed to mention that defendant no.2 (father of the plaintiffs) had stated that after his death, plaintiffs along with defendant nos.3 to 7 would become owner of the suit land. in the present case, the suit filed by the petitioners is now listed for their rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments. at this stage, application for permission to amend the plaint has been filed. sandeep sethi 2014.02.13 10:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cr no.1051 of 2014 -2- case of the petitioners is that defendant no.2, their father had told them that they along with defendants no.3 to 7 would become owners of the suit land after his death. however, the words 'after the death' of karam singh could not be mentioned in the plaint. in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs had been rightly disallowed by the trial court, as the fact now sought to be brought on record was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs. the plaintiffs could have sought amendment of the plaint at an initial stage. however, now when the case is listed for rebuttal evidence of the petitioners.if any and arguments, the prayer for permission to amend the plaint has been rightly declined. hence, no ground for interference is made out. dismissed. (sabina) judge february 11, 2014. sandeep sethi sandeep sethi 2014.02.13 10:14 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CR No.1051 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (119) CR No.1051 of 2014 Date of decision:11.02.2014 Chima Devi alias Seema Devi and others ......Petitioners Versus Jitender Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioneRs.**** SABINA, J.

Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 02.01.2014 (Annexure P-1).whereby application moved by the petitioners for permission to amend the plaint, was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, due to inadvertence, in the pleadings the petitioners had failed to mention that defendant No.2 (father of the plaintiffs) had stated that after his death, plaintiffs along with defendant Nos.3 to 7 would become owner of the suit land.

In the present case, the suit filed by the petitioners is now listed for their rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments.

At this stage, application for permission to amend the plaint has been filed.

Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.13 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.1051 of 2014 -2- Case of the petitioners is that defendant No.2, their father had told them that they along with defendants No.3 to 7 would become owners of the suit land after his death.

However, the words 'after the death' of Karam Singh could not be mentioned in the plaint.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs had been rightly disallowed by the trial court, as the fact now sought to be brought on record was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs could have sought amendment of the plaint at an initial stage.

However, now when the case is listed for rebuttal evidence of the petitioneRs.if any and arguments, the prayer for permission to amend the plaint has been rightly declined.

Hence, no ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE February 11, 2014.

sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2014.02.13 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document