Balbir Singh v. Gram Panchayat and Another Gram Panchayat and
Case Details
(O&M) CR-6461-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-6461-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 15.09.2025 Decided on : Balbir Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Gram Panchayat and Another Gram Panchayat and ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Kulwinder Singh for Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Sarwara, Advocate MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1.
Legal Reasoning
This revision petition has been filed by defendant no. 2 Balbir Singh This revision petition has been filed by defendant no. 2 Balbir Singh This revision petition has been filed by defendant no. 2 Balbir Singh This revision petition has been filed by defendant no. 2 Balbir Singh for setting aside the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge for setting aside the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge for setting aside the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge for setting aside the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge Gram Panchayat v. Amar Singh and (Junior Division), Rajpura in case titled as “Gram Panchayat v. Amar Singh and Gram Panchayat v. Amar Singh and (Junior Division), Rajpura in case titled as another”, whereby the applic ation moved by defendant no. 2 for permission to file , whereby the application moved by defendant no. 2 for permission to file ation moved by defendant no. 2 for permission to file a separate written statement was dismissed. a separate written statement was dismissed. Brief Facts 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the manent Gram Panchayat, respondent no. 1 herein, instituted a civil suit for permanent Gram Panchayat, respondent no. 1 herein, instituted a civil suit for per Gram Panchayat, respondent no. 1 herein, instituted a civil suit for per injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the village injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the village injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the village injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the village Gandi, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. pond situated in Lal Lakir of village Kheri Gandi, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. Gandi, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. pond situated in Lal Lak The present petitioner/defendant no. 2, on account of close relationship and trust, 2, on account of close relationship and tru resent petitioner/defendant no.2, on account of close relationship and tru defendant Amar Singh. Defendant no. 1, entrusted the defence of the suit to his co-defendant Amar Singh. Defendant no. 1, defendant Amar Singh. Defendant no. 1, entrusted the defence of the suit to his co being more literate and elder, assured the petitioner that he would look after the being more literate and elder, assured the petitioner that he would look after the being more literate and elder, assured the petitioner that he would look after the being more literate and elder, assured the petitioner that he would look after the case on behalf of both the defendants. In these circumstances, a joint written case on behalf of both the defendants. In these circumstances, a joint written case on behalf of both the defendants. In these circumstances, a joint written case on behalf of both the defendants. In these circumstances, a joint written TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6461-2025 (O&M) -2- - statement was filed in the suit, and the petitioner/defendant no. 2, who is not nt was filed in the suit, and the petitioner/defendant no. 2, who is not nt was filed in the suit, and the petitioner/defendant no. 2, who is not nt was filed in the suit, and the petitioner/defendant no. 2, who is not conversant with English, signed the same along with verification at the instance of conversant with English, signed the same along with verification at the instance of conversant with English, signed the same along with verification at the instance of conversant with English, signed the same along with verification at the instance of defendant no. 1, believing that it correctly represented his defence. defendant no. 1, believing that it correctly represented his defence. defendant no. 1, believing that it correctly represented his defence. 3. n statement contained averments wholly However, the joint written statement contained averments wholly n statement contained averments wholly However, the joint writte false and detrimental to the petitioner. It was specifically pleaded that defendant false and detrimental to the petitioner. It was specifically pleaded that defendant false and detrimental to the petitioner. It was specifically pleaded that defendant false and detrimental to the petitioner. It was specifically pleaded that defendant no. 1 had constructed the disputed shops in 2008 and later reconstructed the same no. 1 had constructed the disputed shops in 2008 and later reconstructed the same no. 1 had constructed the disputed shops in 2008 and later reconstructed the same no. 1 had constructed the disputed shops in 2008 and later reconstructed the same the true position is that the shops after a fire. This plea was factually incorrect as the true position is that the shops after a fire. This plea was factually incorrect as after a fire. This plea was factually incorrect as were in fact purchased by the wife of defendant no. 2, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. After were in fact purchased by the wife of defendant no. 2, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. After were in fact purchased by the wife of defendant no. 2, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. After were in fact purchased by the wife of defendant no. 2, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. After the filing of the joint written statement, the trial proceeded further, issues were the filing of the joint written statement, the trial proceeded further, issues were the filing of the joint written statement, the trial proceeded further, issues were the filing of the joint written statement, the trial proceeded further, issues were During this period, framed, and the plaintiff even examined two witnesses. During this period, framed, and the plaintiff even examined two witnesses. framed, and the plaintiff even examined two witnesses. defendant no. 2 remained unaware of the false stand taken in the joint written defendant no. 2 remained unaware of the false stand taken in the joint written defendant no. 2 remained unaware of the false stand taken in the joint written defendant no. 2 remained unaware of the false stand taken in the joint written statement. It was only upon issuance of notice dated 08.04.2022, when none statement. It was only upon issuance of notice dated 08.04.2022, when none statement. It was only upon issuance of notice dated 08.04.2022, when none statement. It was only upon issuance of notice dated 08.04.2022, when none appeared on behalf of the defendants and the Court proceeded against defendant appeared on behalf of the defendants and the Court proceeded against defendant appeared on behalf of the defendants and the Court proceeded against defendant appeared on behalf of the defendants and the Court proceeded against defendant 1 ex parte, that defendant no. 2 engaged his own counsel and on 19.09.2022 no. 1 ex parte, that defendant no. 2 engaged his own counsel and on 19.09.2022 1 ex parte, that defendant no. 2 engaged his own counsel and on 19.09.2022 1 ex parte, that defendant no. 2 engaged his own counsel and on 19.09.2022 inspected the record. At that stage, he came to know that the joint written statement inspected the record. At that stage, he came to know that the joint written statement inspected the record. At that stage, he came to know that the joint written statement inspected the record. At that stage, he came to know that the joint written statement contained incorrect averments regarding ownership of the disputed shops. Having contained incorrect averments regarding ownership of the disputed shops. Having contained incorrect averments regarding ownership of the disputed shops. Having contained incorrect averments regarding ownership of the disputed shops. Having position, defendant no. 2 moved an application before the trial Court realised this position, defendant no. 2 moved an application before the trial Court position, defendant no. 2 moved an application before the trial Court position, defendant no. 2 moved an application before the trial Court for permission to file his separate written statement in order to bring on record his for permission to file his separate written statement in order to bring on record his for permission to file his separate written statement in order to bring on record his for permission to file his separate written statement in order to bring on record his genuine defence. genuine defence. 4. The said application was contested by the plaintiff and ultimately The said application was contested by the plaintiff and ultimately The said application was contested by the plaintiff and ultimately The said application was contested by the plaintiff and ultimately the trial Court on the ground that the joint written statement already dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the joint written statement already the trial Court on the ground that the joint written statement already the trial Court on the ground that the joint written statement already bore the signatures of both the defendants duly verified, and having admitted the bore the signatures of both the defendants duly verified, and having admitted the bore the signatures of both the defendants duly verified, and having admitted the bore the signatures of both the defendants duly verified, and having admitted the contents therein to be true and correct, defendant no. 2 could not be permitted, contents therein to be true and correct, defendant no. 2 could not be permitted, contents therein to be true and correct, defendant no. 2 could not be permitted, contents therein to be true and correct, defendant no. 2 could not be permitted, to file a contradictory statement. The trial Court further held after several months, to file a contradictory statement. The trial Court further held to file a contradictory statement. The trial Court further held after several months, that one of the defendants cannot be allowed to take inconsistent pleas without the that one of the defendants cannot be allowed to take inconsistent pleas without the that one of the defendants cannot be allowed to take inconsistent pleas without the that one of the defendants cannot be allowed to take inconsistent pleas without the consent of the other defendant, as that would virtually amount to amending the consent of the other defendant, as that would virtually amount to amending the consent of the other defendant, as that would virtually amount to amending the consent of the other defendant, as that would virtually amount to amending the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6461-2025 (O&M) -3- - ch is impermissible. It is against this order that the joint written statement, which is impermissible. It is against this order that the ch is impermissible. It is against this order that the joint written statement, whi present revision petition has been filed. present revision petition has been filed. 5. the learned trial Court Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that has committed a grave jurisdictional error by failing to appreciate the core of the has committed a grave jurisdictional error by failing to appreciate the core of the has committed a grave jurisdictional error by failing to appreciate the core of the has committed a grave jurisdictional error by failing to appreciate the core of the Amar petitioner’s plea, which was rooted in misrepresentation by respondent No.2- Amar petitioner’s plea, which was rooted in misrepresentation by respondent No.2 petitioner’s plea, which was rooted in misrepresentation by respondent No.2 Singh (co-defendant). He further submits that defendant). He further submits that denial of separate written denial of filing of separate written statement to the petitioner would in multiplicity of proceedings and deprive to the petitioner would result in multiplicity of proceedings and deprive in multiplicity of proceedings and deprive him of complete and effective relief. complete and effective relief. It is further finding of the It is further contended that the finding of the learned trial Court that the application was belated, is unsustainable as the learned trial Court that the application was belated, is unsustainable as the learned trial Court that the application was belated, is unsustainable as the learned trial Court that the application was belated, is unsustainable as the He acted under a bona fide belief petitioner was not guilty of laches or negligence. He acted under a bona fide belief petitioner was not guilty of laches or negligence. petitioner was not guilty of laches or negligence. defendant. The period of delay should only start from the date of induced by his co-defendant. The period of delay should only start from the date of defendant. The period of delay should only start from the date of induced by his co knowledge of the fraud, which was upon inspection of the file by his new counsel. knowledge of the fraud, which was upon inspection of the file by his new counsel. knowledge of the fraud, which was upon inspection of the file by his new counsel. knowledge of the fraud, which was upon inspection of the file by his new counsel. t pleadings are not to be He further submits that it is settled law that held that pleadings are not to be He further submits that it is settled law that held tha He further submits that it is settled law that held tha construed in a pedantic manner and amendments or clarifications must be liberally construed in a pedantic manner and amendments or clarifications must be liberally construed in a pedantic manner and amendments or clarifications must be liberally construed in a pedantic manner and amendments or clarifications must be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy and refusal allowed to determine the real controversy to file a separate written and refusal to file a separate written statement would deprive the petitioner to establish his proprietary rights. statement would deprive the petitioner to establish his proprietary statement would deprive the petitioner to establish his proprietary Findings 6. and upon perusal of Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of Having heard learned counsel for the Having heard learned counsel for the the record, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The trial the record, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The trial the record, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The trial the record, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The trial Court has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that a defendant is forever bound Court has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that a defendant is forever bound Court has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that a defendant is forever bound Court has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that a defendant is forever bound by a joint written statement even if he demonstrates that the averments therein do by a joint written statement even if he demonstrates that the averments therein do by a joint written statement even if he demonstrates that the averments therein do by a joint written statement even if he demonstrates that the averments therein do not reflect his actual defence. The petitioner has clearly explained that he signed not reflect his actual defence. The petitioner has clearly explained that he signed not reflect his actual defence. The petitioner has clearly explained that he signed not reflect his actual defence. The petitioner has clearly explained that he signed the joint written statement under the belief that it represented his case, being the joint written statement under the belief that it represented his case, being the joint written statement under the belief that it represented his case, being the joint written statement under the belief that it represented his case, being misled by his co defendant. Once he realised the incorrectness of the averments, he by his co-defendant. Once he realised the incorrectness of the averments, he defendant. Once he realised the incorrectness of the averments, he promptly moved the Court for permission to place on record his own separate promptly moved the Court for permission to place on record his own separate promptly moved the Court for permission to place on record his own separate promptly moved the Court for permission to place on record his own separate TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6461-2025 (O&M) -4- - defence. In such a situation, the law does not forbid a defendant from being defence. In such a situation, the law does not forbid a defendant from being defence. In such a situation, the law does not forbid a defendant from being defence. In such a situation, the law does not forbid a defendant from being allowed to file a separate written statement. allowed to file a separate 7. Firm Srinivas v. Majabir Prasad [1951 SCR The Supreme Court in Firm Srinivas v. Majabir Prasad [1951 SCR Firm Srinivas v. Majabir Prasad [1951 SCR The Supreme Court in has laid down that under the Civil Procedure Code, pleadings may contain 277] has laid down that under the Civil Procedure Code, pleadings may contain has laid down that under the Civil Procedure Code, pleadings may contain has laid down that under the Civil Procedure Code, pleadings may contain alternate and inconsistent allegations, and parties are not debarred from taking alternate and inconsistent allegations, and parties are not debarred from taking alternate and inconsistent allegations, and parties are not debarred from taking alternate and inconsistent allegations, and parties are not debarred from taking nt stands in their defence. It was observed that a plaintiff may rely upon inconsistent stands in their defence. It was observed that a plaintiff may rely upon nt stands in their defence. It was observed that a plaintiff may rely upon nt stands in their defence. It was observed that a plaintiff may rely upon different rights alternatively and there is nothing in the Code to prevent a party different rights alternatively and there is nothing in the Code to prevent a party different rights alternatively and there is nothing in the Code to prevent a party different rights alternatively and there is nothing in the Code to prevent a party from making two or more inconsistent sets of allegations and claiming relief from making two or more inconsistent sets of allegations and claiming relief from making two or more inconsistent sets of allegations and claiming relief from making two or more inconsistent sets of allegations and claiming relief ernative. The Court emphasised that ordinarily relief cannot be thereunder in the alternative. The Court emphasised that ordinarily relief cannot be ernative. The Court emphasised that ordinarily relief cannot be thereunder in the alt granted on a case not pleaded, but when an alternative case which the plaintiff granted on a case not pleaded, but when an alternative case which the plaintiff granted on a case not pleaded, but when an alternative case which the plaintiff granted on a case not pleaded, but when an alternative case which the plaintiff could have made was admitted by the defendant in his written statement and could have made was admitted by the defendant in his written statement and could have made was admitted by the defendant in his written statement and could have made was admitted by the defendant in his written statement and the claim, then it would not be improper for expressly put forward as an answer to the claim, then it would not be improper for the claim, then it would not be improper for expressly put forward as an answer to the Court to adjudicate upon such a case. The principle flowing from this judgment the Court to adjudicate upon such a case. The principle flowing from this judgment the Court to adjudicate upon such a case. The principle flowing from this judgment the Court to adjudicate upon such a case. The principle flowing from this judgment is that pleadings are not to be construed with undue rigidity, and even inconsistent is that pleadings are not to be construed with undue rigidity, and even inconsistent is that pleadings are not to be construed with undue rigidity, and even inconsistent is that pleadings are not to be construed with undue rigidity, and even inconsistent ovided the opposite party is not taken and contradictory pleas may be allowed, provided the opposite party is not taken ovided the opposite party is not taken and contradictory pleas may be allowed, pr by surprise and has an opportunity to meet them. by surprise and has an opportunity to meet them. by surprise and has an opportunity to meet them. 8. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is evident that permitting defendant no. 2 to file a separate written statement would evident that permitting defendant no. 2 to file a separate written statement would evident that permitting defendant no. 2 to file a separate written statement would evident that permitting defendant no. 2 to file a separate written statement would udice the plaintiff. The original joint written statement will remain on not prejudice the plaintiff. The original joint written statement will remain on udice the plaintiff. The original joint written statement will remain on udice the plaintiff. The original joint written statement will remain on The separate written statement of defendant no. 2 will also be on record record. The separate written statement of defendant no. 2 will also be on record The separate written statement of defendant no. 2 will also be on record The separate written statement of defendant no. 2 will also be on record and at the stage of trial, the Court will consider the rival versions and determine the and at the stage of trial, the Court will consider the rival versions and determine the and at the stage of trial, the Court will consider the rival versions and determine the and at the stage of trial, the Court will consider the rival versions and determine the contrary, allowing defendant no. 2 to file his separate written truth. On the contrary, allowing defendant no. 2 to file his separate written contrary, allowing defendant no. 2 to file his separate written contrary, allowing defendant no. 2 to file his separate written statement will advance the cause of justice by enabling the Court to adjudicate statement will advance the cause of justice by enabling the Court to adjudicate statement will advance the cause of justice by enabling the Court to adjudicate statement will advance the cause of justice by enabling the Court to adjudicate Moreover, the plea to be taken by upon the real dispute between the parties. Moreover, the plea to be taken by Moreover, the plea to be taken by upon the real dispute between the parties. ritten statement is inconsistent qua defendant defendant No.2 by way of separate written statement is inconsistent qua defendant ritten statement is inconsistent qua defendant defendant No.2 by way of separate w TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-6461-2025 (O&M) -5- - No.1 and not against plaintiff who is not going to be prejudiced by the said plea No.1 and not against plaintiff who is not going to be prejudiced by the said plea No.1 and not against plaintiff who is not going to be prejudiced by the said plea No.1 and not against plaintiff who is not going to be prejudiced by the said plea taken up by defendant No.2 in separate written statement. taken up by defendant No.2 in separate written statement. taken up by defendant No.2 in separate written statement. 9. The reasoning adopted by the trial Court that one defendant cannot The reasoning adopted by the trial Court that one defendant can The reasoning adopted by the trial Court that one defendant can The reasoning adopted by the trial Court that one defendant can take a contrary plea without the consent of the other is misplaced. There is no such take a contrary plea without the consent of the other is misplaced. There is no such take a contrary plea without the consent of the other is misplaced. There is no such take a contrary plea without the consent of the other is misplaced. There is no such bar in law. On the contrary, the Code itself, under Order VIII Rule 9, permits the bar in law. On the contrary, the Code itself, under Order VIII Rule 9, permits the bar in law. On the contrary, the Code itself, under Order VIII Rule 9, permits the bar in law. On the contrary, the Code itself, under Order VIII Rule 9, permits the Court to allow additional written statements. The petitioner cannot be compelled to Court to allow additional written statements. The petitioner cannot be compelled to Court to allow additional written statements. The petitioner cannot be compelled to Court to allow additional written statements. The petitioner cannot be compelled to defendant under circumstances abide by incorrect admissions made by his co-defendant under circumstances abide by incorrect admissions made by his co abide by incorrect admissions made by his co where he has shown that the said written statement did not reflect his actual where he has shown that the said written statement did not reflect his actual where he has shown that the said written statement did not reflect his actual where he has shown that the said written statement did not reflect his actual defence. 10. In view of the discussion aforesaid and taking guidance from the In view of the discussion aforesaid and taking guidance from the In view of the discussion aforesaid and taking guidance from the In view of the discussion aforesaid and taking guidance from the principle enunciated in Firm Srinivas v. Majabir Prasad (supra) principle enunciated in , this Court holds Firm Srinivas v. Majabir Prasad (supra), this Court holds that the petitioner/defendant no. 2 is entitled to place on record his separate written that the petitioner/defendant no. 2 is entitled to place on record his separate written that the petitioner/defendant no. 2 is entitled to place on record his separate written that the petitioner/defendant no. 2 is entitled to place on record his separate written statement even though it may contain pleas inconsistent with the earlier joint statement even though it may contain pleas inconsistent with the earlier joint statement even though it may contain pleas inconsistent with the earlier joint statement even though it may contain pleas inconsistent with the earlier joint statement will remain on record, but that cannot written statement. The earlier statement will remain on record, but that cannot statement will remain on record, but that cannot written statement. The earlier preclude defendant no. 2 from bringing his own defence before the Court. preclude defendant no. 2 from bringing his own defence before the Court. preclude defendant no. 2 from bringing his own defence before the Court. Conclusion 11. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned Judge (Junior Division), order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Rajpura is set aside. The application filed by defendant no. 2 for permission to file Rajpura is set aside. The application filed by defendant no. 2 for permission to file Rajpura is set aside. The application filed by defendant no. 2 for permission to file Rajpura is set aside. The application filed by defendant no. 2 for permission to file a separate written statement is allowed. The learned a separate written statement is allowed. The trial Court shall take the said learned trial Court shall take the said he suit in accordance written statement on record and proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance written statement on record and proceed with the trial of t written statement on record and proceed with the trial of t with law. 12.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 September 15, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document