AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahesh Grover, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.3.2009 by which the amendment sought by the petitioner has been declined.
The petitioner had filed a suit claiming 1/3rd share in the property left by her father. She is the step-daughter of respondent No. 1. She sought the following amendment to be incorporated in the plaint by filing application under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.:
i) That in the head note and prayer clause the following lines are to be added:
ii) That after the details given at letter ''C'' in the end the following lines are to be added:
and the alleged GPA dated 14.6.2001 regd. in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mohali executed by Defd. No. 1 & 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1 and further sale if any, in favour of Defendant No. 3 in respect of 0-5 house, comprised in Kh/Kh No. 370/389, Khasra No. 15/2/2/1/3 (0- 5) as fully described above at Letter (a) are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside and cancelled qua the share of the plaintiff and the Mutation No. 3767 in respect of inheritance of Murari Lal is the result of fraud played by Deft. No. 1 & 2 upon the revenue officials and the said mutation is illegal.
iii) That Smt. Nand Devi is to be arrayed as defendant:
Nanda Devi w/o Prem Chand R/o H. No. 88, Badheri, U.T., Chandigarh.
That following para 3-B is to be added as under:
That the Defendants 1 & 2 by playing the real facts that the plaintiff is also Class I heir of late Sh. Murari Lal Sachdeva by playing a fraud upon the revenue officials at the back of the plaintiff, have got entered and attested Mutation No. 3767 in their favour in respect of house as fully described above, situated at Balongi and the same is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside and cancelled and further Defendant No. 3 alleges G.P.A. dated 14.6.2001 regd. in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mohali Vasika No. 44014 and further sale, if any, by the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in favour of Deft. No. 3 are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside and cancelled qua 1/3 rd share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has got a preferential right to purchase the said house after paying the amount of 2/3 share of Defendant Nos. 1 & 2.
The learned trial Court declined the application of the petitioner seeking the abovesaid amendments in the plaint. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit the land has been alienated and when this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner she moved an application seeking particulars of such a sale which were not divulged to her.
It has been further contended that the introduction of the details of the land by way of revenue entries is merely explanatory and does not prejudice the case of the respondents.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the amendment at this belated stage cannot be allowed.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the material on record I am of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed. One of the amendments which has been sought to be incorporated is merely explanatory while the other is in the nature of introduction. In any eventuality these are factors which go to the root of the matter and substantive justice cannot be throttled on such factors especially when the objecting side can easily be compensated with costs.
Having regard to the aforesaid, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The application seeking amendment of plaint is allowed incorporating the necessary amendments which have been incorporated therein subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs.