Manjit Kaur alias Jaspal Kaur v. Jiwanjot Kaur & Anr.

The petitioner has been described as Jaspal Kaur alias Manjit Kaur, in the petition which is pending before the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Faridkot, exercising the powers of Guardian Judge. The petitioner is contesting above said petition filed by the respondents taking up the plea that the respondents have in Duttak ceremony arranged by Mohar Singh, taken Gurlal Singh in adoption as his son in function. The said ceremony has been performed in the presence of Shri Guru Granth Sahib, when minor Gurlal Singh was adopted by Mohar Singh, who was the husband of the petitioner. By way of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendment of the written statement had been sought to add additional lines in para 2(c) of the written statement wherein the petitioner sought to incorporate certain details of the ceremony of handing over of Gurlal Singh in the lap of Mohar Singh and petitioner Manjit Kaur. I have gone through the original written statement and the amended written statement which has been sought to be . . . 2 C.R.No.2076 of 2009 placed on record.

There is no difference between the contents of original para 2 (c) and the amended para 2 (c) except for certain details of the ceremony of handing over and taking of Gurlal Singh in adoption. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the application has been dismissed on the ground that proceedings have commenced as such, amendment should not be allowed, but in view of the legal requirements that ceremony of giving and taking has to be pleaded and proved, prejudice will be caused in case the details of the ceremony are not permitted to be incorporated. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2832 (1), Baldev Singh and Ors. etc. Vs. Manohar Singh and Anr. etc., wherein incorporating the amended proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the word commencement of 'trial' as used in proviso to mean that it must be understood in limited sense as meaning final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, has relied upon 2009 (2) SCC, 409, Vidyabai and Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & anr., wherein it was held that trial would be deemed to commence when after framing of issues the witness filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. After hearing counsel for both the parties and going through the record of the case, it transpires that the application for . . . 3 C.R.No.2076 of 2009 amendment, in the present case, was filed immediately after framing of the issues and on the presentation of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC, for examination-in-chief of the witness of the respondent Partap Singh. By that time when the application was filed the cross- examination has not commenced and stood deferred by the Court. Irrespective of the stage when the application was filed, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, laid down that the amendment can be permitted in case these are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.

The parties are at issue regarding the question of adoption of Gurlal Singh by the respondents to the petitioner and her deceased husband Mohar Singh. There are certain legal requirements and conditions of a valid adoption as per the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Those conditions have been mentioned in Chapter-II of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It appears that the details of the adoption ceremony are sought to be added by the amendment. A perusal of the plea indicate that the ceremony of alleged adoption of appellant are recorded in a C.D. The amendment sought for by the defendant-petitioner is, in the nature of additional description of the ceremonies. Without expression of any opinion whether those ceremonies are in consonance with the legal requirements, it is suffice to observe that for determining the real controversy regarding adoption, the petitioner could have been allowed to amend the written statement subject to payment of costs as penalty for not . . . 4 C.R.No.2076 of 2009 having properly described the ceremonies in the original written statement.

The revision petition, in view of the above circumstances, is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.03.2009, is hereby set aside. The amendment of written statement is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-. The cost will be paid on a date fixed by the trial Court. In case the costs is not paid, this revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. JUDGE (M.M.S.BEDI) November 30, 2009. . . . 5