Ravinder Kumar v. Krishna Devi & Ors.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL Present:- Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. M.JEYAPAUL, J. ***

Heard the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint, the defendant has come up with the present Civil Revision.

The defendant laid a suit praying for declaration to the effect that he is in actual cultivating possession of the suit land. He has also sought for permanent injunction as well as prohibitory injunction.

The plaintiff has specifically referred to not only the execution of the relinquishment deed but also the execution of the compromise deed under coercion and fear of death. He has Civil Revision No. 6053 of 2012 (O&M) 2 challenged the validity of the relinquishment deed dated 20.4.2006 but unfortunately he failed to challenge the order dated 9.5.2006 passed by the Collector, Bhiwani. By way of present amendment the plaintiff has chosen to challenge the said order dated 9.5.2006 passed by the Collector, Bhiwani.

It is submitted by the counsel for the Revision Petitioner such an amendment would result in de-novo trial. Referring to the stage of the case, he would submit that the defendant would put to hardship if such an amendment is allowed at the fag end of the trial of the case.

It is found that there is sufficient pleading found in the original plaint as to the order passed by the Collector, Bhiwani, on

9.5.2006. He has also challenged the relinquishment deed and the compromise deed alleged to have been executed by him under the fear of death. It appears that by inadvertence he had not sought a relief qua the order dated 9.5.2006 passed by the Collector, Bhiwani, based on those two documents.

When there is sufficient pleading in the plaint and the plaintiff by inadvertence had not sought a particular relief his plea for amendment to incorporate the prayer to avoid the order passed by the Collector, Bhiwani cannot be denied.

Of course, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner that the said order has been now challenged before the Financial Commissioner and the same is pending disposal. But the Collector Bhiwani, has passed the order solely based on the alleged relinquishment deed. Therefore, the Civil Revision No. 6053 of 2012 (O&M) 3 plaintiff can challenge the order of the Collector, Bhiwani, in the suit despite the fact that the said order is under challenge before the Financial Commissioner.

De novo trial is not required as the order passed by the Collector, Bhiwani, has already been referred to by the plaintiff in the plaint.

In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, I find that such an amendment will have to be allowed. The trial Court has rightly held that such an amendment sought for by the plaintiff will have to be allowed.

I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the Revision fails and stands dismissed. October 11, 2012 p.singh (M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE