Labh Singh and Others vs Bant Singh and Others

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated 17th December, 1997 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guhla. By this order, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by Plaintiffs-Petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint. Notice of this petition was issued to the Respondents.

Mr. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that in the present case, the Plaintiffs have challenged the decree passed on 18.11.1982 in Suit No. 627 of 1997. He further submits that the Petitioners-Plaintiffs sought two amendments, namely, that the earlier suit was not maintainable against the Defendants as the Petitioners being Bazigars belongs to Scheduled Castes and the suit was not competent in view of the Notification dated 23.2.1962. The learned Counsel further submits that another amendment sought by the Petitioners is to the effect that the Petitioners Labh Singh and Kaka Singh who were minor at the time when the earlier suit was filed, were not defended properly by their guardians.

As regards the first amendment sought by the Petitioners, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners as the Notification dated 23.2.1962 was amended by a subsequent notification of 21.12.1962 and right of pre-emption was taken away only in the case of sale effected before March 31, 1961. Accordingly, the prayer for seeking first amendment is rejected. With regard to the second amendment, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that both the Petitioners were minor when the earlier suit was filed and was decreed on 18.11.1982. He, therefore, contends that the amendment sought is quite relevant and even though this amendment is belated, the other party can be compensated by imposition of costs. Learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioners will not examine any witness in case the second amendment sought is allowed.

Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, however, submits that the suit was filed as far back as in the year 1989 and even according to the case of the Petitioners, they were aware of the facts with regard to second amendment sought now in December, 1997. He also submits that as per impugned order, the Plaintiffs had earlier also filed an application for amendment.

It is true that the suit was filed as far back as in the year 1989 and the second amendment has been sought in the year 1997 when the case was already fixed for 10.1.1998 for arguments, but it cannot be said that the amendment sought for by the Petitioner is not relevant for the proper adjudication of the case as one of the Petitioners Kaka Singh was admittedly shown as minor in that earlier decree. Since second amendment sought for is relevant for the proper adjudication of the case, I am of the opinion that the petition has to be allowed partly subject to payment of costs. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed, and the Petitioners are permitted to amend plaint with regard to the fact that the guardian appointed on behalf of the Petitioner Kaka Singh did not defend the earlier suit properly, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. It is, however, made clear that the Petitioners will not be permitted to examine any witness after the amended plaint is filed but the Respondent will be given an opportunity to examine any witness on the point the amendment has been allowed in terms of the orders passed today. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 8.6.1998.