Suraj Mal vs State of Haryana

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Hansi dated September 2, 1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint.

In brief, the relevant facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for a declaration against the respondents seeking that he is entitled to the transfer of agricultural land in question. He also challenged the auction held on November 28, 1980 by defendant No.2 and seeks permanent injunction to restrain the respondent-defendants from ejecting and taking possession of the land in question.

It is not a controversy that on basis of the pleadings of the parties, after the issues had been framed, evidence has been produced. It is towards the end of the trial that the application seeking amendment of the plaint was filed. The petitioner wanted to amend the plaint. He seeks to challenge the order dated August 3, 1968 and also prays for prohibitory injunction.

The learned trial Court dismissed the application primarily on the ground that it is highly belated and that the petitioner-plaintiff could not challenge the said order after lapse of such a long time.

The law pertaining to amendment requires further elucidation. All amendments necessary to determine the questions in controversy have to be allowed. Duty of the Court is to determine the rights of the parties and not to punish them for the mistakes, if any. Without being exhaustive, one can mention some of the exceptions of this rule. If the application filed is mala fide, withdraws the admissions made without explaining them, takes away the vested rights of the other party, the other party cannot be compensated in terms of costs or the claim has become time barred in time when he seeks an amendment, then in the peculiar facts of those cases, the amendment can be disallowed.

In the present case, though, amendment claimed is belated, but still it appears from the tenor of the impugned order that the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of August 3, 1968 which has crept into the record on the basis of testimony of defendant No. 3. Otherwise also, the question of limitation in the peculiar facts will not come into play because if there is any such order, the petitioner would challenge the same when the occasion arises and not from the date it is passed. The amendments claimed are necessary to determine the question in controversy and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the amendment is allowed on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs.

It is added by way of abundant caution that nothing said herein is an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. The trial Court would be competent to see if such an order has bee passed and the value thereto. Regarding that no opinion for purposes of the present order is being expressed.