Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

FATEH SINGH versus ZILE SINGH & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Fateh Singh v. Zile Singh & Ors. - CR-972-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 3237 (17 May 2006)

Civil Revision No. 972 of 2005 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

******

Civil Revision No. 972 of 2005

Date of decision: May 29, 2006.

Fateh Singh

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Zile Singh & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Madan Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

As per the Office report, the service is complete. No one appears on behalf of the respondents.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21st December, 2004 whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal has dismissed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint.

From the material on record, it appears that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction on 9.11.2001. The issues were framed on 3.12.2002 and the case was thereafter taken up before the Lok Adalat for compromise also. However, the parties failed to reach any compromise before the Lok Adalat. After a Civil Revision No. 972 of 2005 -: 2 :-

period of more than one year, the petitioner moved the application dated 11.4.2003 seeking amendment of the plaint in order to incorporate the facts regarding the alleged compromise arrived at between the parties before the Panchayat on 7.12.2001. The learned trial court has, however, dismissed the application after observing that had there been any compromise between the parties on 7.12.2001, the suit could not have been listed before the Lok Adalat for compromise on 22.12.2001 and that the application for amendment also suffers from delay.

It is contended that a compromise was actually arrived at between the parties on 7.12.2001, a translated copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-4. It is also contended that the trial court erroneously went into the issue as to whether or not there was actually a compromise between the parties on 7.12.2001. As regards delay, learned counsel contends that no prejudice has been caused to the respondents and, in any case, they could be compensated with costs.

Having heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot sustain. While considering the application for amendment, the learned trial court was not required to opine as to whether or not a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 7.12.2001. The petitioner merely wanted to take a plea to this effect and it was for him to prove the factum of compromise by leading evidence. The learned trial court, thus, need not to have travelled into the issue as to whether or not the parties had compromised.

Consequently, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 21.12.2004 is set aside and the application dated 11.4.2003 moved by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint is allowed subject to, Civil Revision No. 972 of 2005 -: 3 :-

however, payment of costs of Rs.2500/- to the respondents.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 17.7.2006.

May 29, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan 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.