Balwant Singh vs Ujjagar Singh and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This revision is filed against the order of decision of Civil Judge dated 20.4.1996. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for a declaration that he became the owner of 2.3rd share of the suit land by afflux of time and, therefore, in the plaint he stated that Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Harnek Singh has mortgaged the land infavour of the plaintiff. Now, he wants to substitute the name of Bachan Singh as the mortgager. In the plaint, it is clearly mentioned that the suit property was mortgaged on 8.7.1954, that is, the very fact of mortgage was mentioned in the plaint. Whether the mortgager was Bachan Singh or Mukhtiar Kaur is a matter to be seen from the record. Instead of mentioning the names of original mortgagor Bachan Singh, the plaintiff got it typed in the plaint the name of Mukhtiar Kaur.

In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the amendment sought for is to be allowed. The reasoning given by the learned trial Judge is that since the suit was filed in the year 1990 and the application for amendment was filed after a lapse of 8 years and if the amendment is allowed, it would delay the proceedings since the defendants will have to be given opportunity of filing written statement. This is not a ground for rejecting the application for amendment. It cannot be disputed that amendment of the pleadings can be ordered at any stage before the court pronounces the final judgment.

In this view of the matter, I allow to the revision petition and allow the amendment of the plaint.

If any date is given by the trial Court, the parties are directed to appear on that date. If no date is given by the trial Court, the trial Court is directed to give, notice to the parties to appear before. it on any date fixed by it.