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


Gurjeet Singh v. Gurdev Singh & Ors - CR-6662-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 9025 (23 October 2006)

Civil Revision No. 6662 of 2005



Civil Revision No. 6662 of 2005

Date of decision: 26.10.2006

Gurjeet Singh

..... Petitioner.


Gurdev Singh and others

..... Respondents.

Present:- Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. P.K. Gupta,Advocate

for respondent No. 1.

Mr. M.L. Saini,Advocate

for respondent Nos.2 to 6.


The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 08.11.2005 passed by the trial Court declining the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner- defendant in the suit.

The petitioner had prayed for three amendments. Firstly it was prayed that Amar Singh father of defendant Rajinder Kaur had wrongly recorded as husband of Rajender Kaur in the written statement. Secondly she prayed that while she was residing in the U.S.A. it was inadvertently mentioned as England. Thirdly it was mentioned that the land which was measuring 80 kanal due to typographical error has been mentioned as 21 kanal. The amendments were opposed by the plaintiff- respondent. The trial Court has declined the amendments after noticing that the written statement Civil Revision No. 6662 of 2005


was filed by the defendant in February 2000. The present application was moved in April 2005. By this time the entire evidence of the plaintiff had already been recorded.

Before me learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amendments were for correction of typographical errors. He submits that so far the defendant has not commenced his evidence. He further submits that even if the amendments were allowed, a further opportunity can be granted to plaintiff to lead any further evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the written statement was filed in the year 2000 and the present application was moved after over five years.

He however submits that if the Court decides to allow the petitioner- defendants in the suit to amend the written statement then the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to file a replication and also one effective opportunity to lead any further evidence, which they may desire and the amendment should be allowed subject to heavy costs.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, defendant in the suit should be permitted to amend the written statement by incorporating three amendments referred to herein above. Consequent upon filing of written statement the plaintiff would be given an opportunity to file a replication and thereafter one effective opportunity be also given to the plaintiff to lead any further evidence which he may desire. This would further be subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs by the petitioner to the plaintiff.

Civil Revision No. 6662 of 2005


The order of the trial Court is therefore set aside and the revision petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

October 26,2006 ( P.S. PATWALIA )

dinesh 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.