Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KIRPAL SINGH & ANR versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LUDHIANA AND OTHER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kirpal Singh & Anr v. Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and other - CR-5562-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8625 (16 October 2006)

CR No. 5562 of 2006 (Page numbers)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No. 5562 of 2006

Date of Decision: 24.10.2006

Kirpal Singh and another ...Petitioners

Versus

Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate, for the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 12.9.2006, whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint, was declined.

The learned trial Court has reproduced the amendment sought for in extenso in the order passed, as well as given the detailed reasons to decline the same. However, for the purposes of the present revision, suffice it to say that the plaintiffs have mainly sought two fold amendments; firstly, to raise a plea of adverse possession and secondly, that possession has not been delivered to the decree holder in pursuance of the decree for specific performance passed in favour of the defendants.

The plaintiffs have filed the suit for injunction on the plea that they have purchased the suit land vide sale deeds dated 22.11.1989 and 22.12.1989, whereas defendant No.3 has relied upon a decree for specific performance dated 4.3.1986 on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 30.11.1977. In pursuance of the said decree, the sale deed has been executed on 20.3.1990. The present suit for injunction was filed on 14.5.1992.

CR No. 5562 of 2006 (Page numbers)

The amendment sought so as to raise a plea of adverse possession has been rightly declined by the learned trial Court as the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to raise a plea of adverse possession after tagging the period during which their suit for injunction was pending before the trial Court. Prior thereto the possession of the plaintiffs is only for a period of less than 3 years and the said period is not relevant to raise a plea of adverse possession. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, whereby the amendment sought so as to raise a plea of adverse possession has been declined.

As regards the amendment sought that the possession has not been delivered to the defendants in pursuance of the decree for specific performance, suffice it to say that such question can be gone into in view of the pleadings of the parties as the defendants are relying upon the decree for specific performance and the fact that the possession was delivered to them at the time of the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the trial Court is to decide the said question in view of the pleadings of the parties even if the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs, is not allowed.

Consequently, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.

24-10-2006 (HEMANT GUPTA)

ds 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.