On January 05, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, observed that an amendment in the written statement to the counterclaim for adding the factum of a sale deed that was already on the record would not cause any prejudice to the opposite party.
Brief Facts:
Bhupinder Singh filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction against the petitioners as well as the respondents, claiming to be the owner in possession of the property on the basis of a sale deed dated 09.03.2012 mentioned in the civil suit. The petitioners were the Performa respondents as they were also beneficiaries of the same sale deed, which was being contested by respondent No.1. As per the plaint filed by Bhupinder Singh, the property was sold by the brother of respondent No.1 to the petitioners as well as Bhupinder Singh vide sale deed dated 09.03.2012, hence they were entitled to use of the same without any interference. Respondent no. 1 appeared in the said suit and raised a counterclaim for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff Bhupinder Singh as well as the petitioners from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property. While replying to the civil suit, respondent no.1 pleaded that the sale deed dated 09.03.2023 was a fictitious document and could not be made the basis for allowing the claim of Bhupinder Singh. In the meantime, the petitioners in the said suit were transposed as plaintiffs in the year 2016 but the said suit was withdrawn and only the counterclaim was pending before the competent Court. After respondent No.1 led evidence in support of the counterclaim, the petitioners realized that though, the factum of the sale deed dated 09.03.2012 came on record but the same was not a part of their written statement to the counterclaim and an application was moved for making an amendment in the said written statement. The same being dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the same was filed after a long delay, gave rise to the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed already came on record in the suit filed by Bhupinder Singh where the petitioners were transposed as plaintiffs and even respondent No.1 was knowledgeable of the said sale deed and objected to the said sale deed being fictitious. The counsel further submitted that the amendment in the written statement, which was only to plead the factum of the sale deed dated 09.03.2012 should have been allowed in the interest of justice as the same would have caused prejudice to respondent No.1 except the delay, for which, the petitioners were ready to compensate the respondent No.1.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel representing respondent no. 1 submitted that the application filed by the petitioners for making an amendment in the written statement was only to delay the proceedings, which were already pending for a long and the hindrances were being created intentionally for the exclusive enjoyment of the property being owned by respondent No.1. The counsel further submitted that the issues in the counterclaim were framed on 31.01.2014 and it was only after a period of approximately 08 years, the present application was filed by the petitioners especially when the trial had commenced hence, there was no ground to allow the application seeking amendment of the written statement especially when the said fact was already in the knowledge of the petitioners.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that once the factum of the sale deed was already on record in the civil suit and the prayer of the petitioners was only to add the said factum in their written statement to the counterclaim filed by respondent No.1, no prejudice was caused to the respondent No.1 except for the delay. The court further added that the said delay could be compensated by the way of monetary compensation especially when the evidence was yet to be led by the petitioners in support of their claim raised in the written statement. Moreover, in case after the amendment of the written statement, respondent No.1 intended to rebut the same, the same could be taken care of in the rebuttal evidence. The Judgment in the case of Baldev Singh and others vs. Manohar Singh and another was referred by the Court.
The Decision of the Court:
The petition was disposed of. An amendment to the written statement was allowed and the petitioners were made liable to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent as compensation for the delay.
Case Title: Sarabjit Singh and others Vs. Jaswinder Kaur Grewal and another
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi
Case No.- CR-5326-2022
Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Mayank Mathur
Advocate for Respondent no. 1: Mr. Animesh Sharma
Read Judgement;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments