Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KANWAR versus SATBIR SINGH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kanwar v. Satbir Singh & Ors - CR-2186-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1778 (17 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CIVIL REVISION NO.2186 OF 2004 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 3, 2006

Ram Kanwar

.....PETITIONER

VERSUS

Satbir Singh and others

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL(ORAL)
Present: Mr.O.P.Sharma, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.C.B.Goel and Mr.Manoj Sharma,

Advocates.

..

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.3.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Gurgaon, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. While dismissing the amendment application, the trial Court has observed as under:- "In view of the above discussion and after careful perusal of the case file, this court is of the considered opinion that so far as the amendment qua the dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land as alleged by him, is concerned, this plea of the plaintiff is totally covered u/s 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and it is the settled proposition of law that the court can take the subsequent events into consideration and there is no need of seeking amendment by the plaintiff if he is CIVIL REVISION NO.2186 OF 2004 (O&M) (2) dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the case. Therefore, the first amendment, as sought for by the applicant-plaintiff, is not necessary. So far as the second amendment is concerned the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC bars the relief because it would not be in the interest of justice at this stage as the proposed amendment is not necessary for the proper determination of the controversy between the parties. Moreover, a simple suit of permanent injunction can be decided without taking of the alternate plea of partition by the plaintiff and the amendment would not be of any benefit for proper adjudication of the case. Moreover, it is not stated by the applicant-plaintiff that the alternate plea could not be raised by him even despite of due diligence of the same was not in his knowledge at the time of filing of the suit. In these circumstances, rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant-plaintiff are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and the application of the applicant-plaintiff stands dismissed. However, no order as to costs."

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to interfere in the aforesaid order in exercise of the superintending powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Dismissed.

April 3, 2006 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)

vkg JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.