SARABJIT KAUR Vs. JOGINDER SINGH BAMRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition is challenge to the order dated 22.07.2015, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar whereby the application for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 CPC, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. Relevant facts of the case that petitioner had filed the suit seeking relief of injunction against alienation of the property as well as declaration seeking cancellation of the sale deed/transfer deed, if any, executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of the suit property. The said suit was filed on the basis of agreement of sale dated 21.01.2013 allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiff and the target date for execution of sale deed was 20.12.2013. The grounds taken in the application for seeking amendment in the plaint were that the plaintiff is an illiterate lady and was not made aware by her previous counsel and was not properly guided and that is why she could not file the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement. The suit for permanent injunction was filed on 4.01.2014. In reply to the application filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the learned trial Judge, plea was taken that application for amendment is not maintainable as on the date of filing of suit itself, main suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable as the target date for execution of sale deed was 20.12.2013 and for that plaintiff was required to file suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.01.2013 and not suit for permanent injunction. Learned trial Judge while passing order under challenge dismissed the application for amendment of plaint on the ground that on 04.01.2014 suit for permanent injunction could not have been filed by plaintiff and the same was not maintainable but suit for specific performance was to be filed and as the main suit itself is not maintainable, the amendment sought for could not be allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that the applicant was an illiterate lady and was totally dependent upon the legal advice from her counsel. Because of illegal advice she could not file suit for specific performance on 04.01.2014. However, when she came to know about this legal defect in the format of the suit, application for amendment of plaint was filed on 09.05.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that law on the point is settled that a party cannot be put to suffer because of any wrong advice having been rendered by her counsel rather the parties should be allowed to contest their case on the basis of all the facts and evidence available on file.

(3.) While arguing on these points, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the application for amendment of plaint because law on the point is settled that amendment should not be allowed in casual manner rather a very serious judicious exercise should be taken while deciding the application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC. More so, amendment cannot be allowed if the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case. On this point, reliance was placed upon judgment from Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Revajeetu Builders and Developers v/s. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others, : (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 84.