High Courts(2010) 07 P&H CK 0145

Baghel Singh vs Dilbagh Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 8 July 2010 · Citation: (2010) 4 RCR(Civil) 28

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 4193 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 370 words

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1 This revision petition is at the instance of defendants who have challenged order dated 7.6.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala by which the plaintiffs have been permitted to bring on record duplicate copy of the plaint and affidavit subject to payment of Rs. 400/ as costs.

2 Briefly put, plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 19 kanals 14 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Dhariwal, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar and in alternative, suit for joint possession and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit land. Admittedly, suit was filed on 4.7.2002. After the expiry of 8 years of the trial when the suit was at the stage of arguments, the defendants filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") to bring on record duplicate copy of the plaint and an affidavit in support thereof. It is clear in the application that suit was filed on 4.7.2002 whereas the amendment in the CPC became operational w.e.f. 1.7.2002 vide which the plaintiffs were required to file duplicate copy of the plaint and also an affidavit in support thereof. The said application has been allowed by the Court below on two grounds firstly, in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of "Vidyawati Gupta & Ors. v. Bhakti Hari Nayak & Ors" 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 727 in which it has been held that the provisions requiring filing of duplicate copy of the plaint and affidavit in support thereof are directory and not mandatory and secondly that the suit is now at the stage of final adjudication, therefore, it would be unjust to decline the prayer made in the application by the plaintiffs. Thus, the application has been allowed compensating the defendants with costs.

3 Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently argued that Section 26(2) of the CPC provides that in every plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit. Order 6 Rule 15(4) of the CPC also provides that the person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit.