✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 20 Jul 2010

Surender Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

C.R No. 4458 of 2010ALOK SINGH

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. I have perused the amendment application, there is no averment in the amendment application as to whether plaintiff ever C.R. No. 4458 of 2010 2 exercised his due diligence and facts sought to be incorporated in the plaint were not in the knowledge of…
  • Para 44. The petition is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed.

Judgment

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner

3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioner-plaintiff has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugning the order dated 26.5.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Jind thereby rejecting the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking to incorporate amendment in the plaint. While rejecting the amendment application, learned Civil Judge has observed that issues were framed way back on 14.6.2007. Evidence of both the parties have already been concluded and case is fixed for final arguments. It has further been observed by trial Court that applicant has failed to prove that despite of exercising due diligence plaintiff could not seek the proposed amendment earlier.

2.

I have perused the amendment application, there is no averment in the amendment application as to whether plaintiff ever C.R. No. 4458 of 2010 2 exercised his due diligence and facts sought to be incorporated in the plaint were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff, or could not be taken in the pleadings for the reasons beyond the control of the plaintiff. No doubt while deciding the amendment application, Court should adopt liberal view, however no amendment ordinarily should be allowed unless and until party seeking amendment is able to prove that despite of due diligence facts were not in the knowledge of the party seeking amendment or same could not be taken before the commencement of the hearing for the reasons beyond the control of the party seeking amendment.

3.

While rejecting the amendment application, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error.

4.

The petition is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed.

20.07.2010 (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 227.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 20 Jul 2010. The bench was ALOK SINGH.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. C.R No. 4458 of 2010). ← Search more judgments