Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M.S.Sandhu v. Gurnam Singh etc. - CR-1853-1992 [2006] RD-P&H 462 (1 February 2006)


Case No. : C.R.No.1853 of 1992

Date of Decision : February 15, 2006.

M.S.Sandhu .... Petitioner


Gurnam Singh etc. .... Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.R.S.Sandhu, Advocate

for the petitioner.


The plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court. The challenge is to the order dated April 26, 1992 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the defendant-applicant, has been allowed and name of the applicant Narinder Singh has been permitted to be added in the head note as well as in the end of the application and it has been ordered that the application filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree shall be deemed to have been filed on behalf of Narinder Singh as well.

The only grouse raised by Shri R.S.Sandhu, counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner is that the application filed by the applicant Narinder Singh was under a wrong law inasmuch as no application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable when there was a specific provision contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the pleadings. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid provision would also apply to the amendment of the pleadings in the applications.

After taking into consideration the argument of the learned counsel, I do not find any merit in the same.

C.R.No.1853 of 1992 : 2 :

It is well settled that mentioning of a wrong provision would not take away the jurisdiction of the court if there is one conferred under some other provision of law. Admittedly, the application filed by Narinder Singh for seeking amendment of the application in the heading as well as in the end of the application was maintainable under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If there was a power conferred upon the trial court to allow the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, then the application filed by the applicant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be held to be not maintainable. As noticed above, since the trial court had jurisdiction to allow the amendment, therefore, the aforesaid jurisdiction had been rightly exercised.

I find no merit in the present revision petition.


February 15, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


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


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 |

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