Gaay Gaay Sewa Samiti v. Hardev Singh
Case Details
Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 ngh Hardev Singh Gaay Sewa Sa a Samiti Vs. CR-5744-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 20.05.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: Present:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocat for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA ocate ate Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present Revision Petitio tition has been he filed by the
Legal Reasoning
defendant und under Article 227 of the Constitu ide stitution of India for setting aside impugned ord order dated 31.10.2022 passed b ior ed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amr Amritsar in Civil Suit bearing No.9 2 No.96715-2013 dated 26.07.2012 titled as “Gaay Gaay Sewa Samiti Vs. Hardev Singh” urt ngh” vide which the learned Court dismissed the the application (Annexure P3) filed nt filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 6 er 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Secti er ection 151 CPC as well as under Order 14 Rule Rule 5 CPC; with a further prayer fo ion r for allowing the said application (Annexure P3) P3). 2. At the very outset, it is sub
Legal Reasoning
for submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner oner that the present petition is n ght is not pressed qua relief sought under Order 1 er 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of a is of additional issue; and prayer is only that appl application of the petitioner under o ith der order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 C 51 CPC for amendment of written is itten statement, be allowed. It is submitted by by learned counsel for the petit an etitioner that on account of an inadvertent er nt error, the date of Will could not nal not be mentioned in the original written statem atement. Learned counsel submits t ad its that though the petitioner had SUNENA 2025.05.22 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) pleaded existe xistence of the Will in the written Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) ate itten statement yet only the date thereof could ould not be mentioned. It is submitted that merely is in in incorporating ting date of Will in the written st he n statement will not change the nature of the the suit; and the same will cause es. ause no prejudice to the parties. Petitioner eve even does not wish to lead any evid ll evidence in this regard as the Will has already be y been produced by the petitioner gly oner in evidence. It is accordingly prayed that at the present petition be allow be allowed, and the petitioner be permitted to to make the innocuous technical ing ical amendment of incorporating date of Will in ill in the written statement. 3. Learned counsel for the ses the plaintiff/respondent opposes the prayer ma made on behalf of the petitioner a er er and submits that the petitioner is habitual o al of filing one application after ird fter another. This is the third application fo n for amendment filed by the p nt e petitioner. Moreover, present application ha n has been filed at the time of fina gly final arguments. It is accordingly prayed that th sed. t the present petition be dismissed. 4. 5. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned couns ed ounsel for the parties and perused the case file in ile in great detail. 6. Brief facts of the case are nt are that the plaintiff/respondent had filed a a suit on dated 25.07.2012 (A nt (Annexure P1) for permanent injunction res restraining the petitioner/defend he fendant from interfering in the management, ent, control and affairs of the m the plaintiff/Society and from encroaching ng upon the premises of the en he Gaushala Complex. Written Statement dat dated 25.1.2013 (Annexure P2) w he ) was filed by the petitioner to the said suit. Issu ssues were framed in the matte on atter on 27.04.2015; whereupon parties led t d their evidence. When the m nal matter was at stage of final arguments, th the petitioner filed the present 22 ent application dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P3) 3) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC w ght C whereby the petitioner sought permission to n to incorporate the date of Wi en Will in Para 3 of the written SUNENA 2025.05.22 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) statement as as the date of Will was ‘inadver Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) he dvertently’ not mentioned in the written statem atement (Annexure P2). The petiti er etitioner also sought relief under Order 14 Rule Rule 5 CPC for framing of additio ed ditional issue. However, as noted above, learne arned counsel for the petitioner nt ner has stated that the present petition is not not pressed qua relief under Order der 14 Rule 5 CPC. 7. In the written statement as ent (Annexure P2) petitioner has specifically sta y stated in Para 3 that testator Mah d a Mahant Babu Ram had executed a Will in his favo favour; and after his death, the pet irs petitioner is managing the affairs of Gaushala C la Complex. Admittedly, not only he nly the respondent but also the petitioner ha has already led evidence ive in support of their respective in contentions. T . The petitioner has even led evi of evidence regarding execution of Will dated 01 d 01.09.2012. The petitioner has ing has also examined the attesting witnesses of t of the said alleged Will. As such, t led ch, the petitioner has already led positive eviden vidence in support of his contention tions. 8. Furthermore, it cannot b nt ot be ignored that the present application is is the third application for amend er; endment filed by the petitioner; and the seco second application for framing t of g the issue regarding relief of injunction was was already framed by the learne us arned trial Court on two previous occasions. Nee . Needless to say, if the plaintiff had on had sought relief of declaration on the basis of of disputed Will or to challenge he nge the validity of the Will, the amendment s nt sought by the petitioner may ha t is y have been necessary. Thus, it is not clear as t as to what purpose will be served to rved if petitioner is permitted to amend his w is written statement at this bela to belated stage only in order to incorporate th te the date of Will. The only irresi be rresistible conclusion that can be drawn in this this circumstance is that it is a co he a concerted effort on part of the petitioner to d to delay the trial. 9. Furthermore, given the na for e nature of suit viz prayer is for permanent in t injunction restraining the petiti he etitioner from interfering in the management a ent and affairs of the plaintiff-Societ on ociety, and from encroaching upon SUNENA 2025.05.22 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) the premises ises of the Gaushala Complex Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) is – the issue of ownership is extraneous to s to the dispute at hand and need ed not to be determined. 10 In this view of the matte to atter, no ground is made out to interfere in the n the impugned order. Present petit etition is dismissed. 11. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 20.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: (Nidhi Gupta) Judge SUNENA 2025.05.22 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)