M.L.SINGHAL,J - (1.) THIS is revision filed by Nathi Ram defendant against order dated 14.8.1999 of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kurukshetra whereby he refused his application for amendment of the written statement. By way of amendment, he wanted to add i.e. new para No. 7(A) in the written statement under the head "preliminary objections." Para 7(A) reads as under :- "That the plaintiff has got no right or interest in the suit land and the transaction of sale alleged by the plaintiff is also false and fictitious but going to the worst and otherwise also, the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession also. The possession of the defendant on the suit land has been since the last 56 years and two months. Therefore, the possession of the defendant on the suit land is continuous for the requisite period. The defendant never paid any amount of rent or anything else for the use and occupation of the suit land and the possession of the defendant is adverse and hostile to the very knowledge of the whole village including the plaintiff, therefore, the possession of the defendant has ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession and due to this reason also the plaintiff has not no right to seek possession from the defendant."
(2.) FACTS : Mam Raj father of Nathi Ram and husband of Smt. Bhagwanti was in possession of land measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marlas situated in village Kirmach, Tehsil Karnal now Kurukshetra as "Gair Maurusi Sakin Deh" as per entry in jamabandi for the year 1977-78. He did not pay lagan or batai to any body and remained in possession peaceably, openly and without any obstruction and thus had become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. Ram Singh father of Puran Chand purchased this suit land from Sardara. After the death of Ram Singh, name of Puran Chand was recorded in the column of ownership in the jamabandi. Taking advantage of that entry in jamabandi, Puran Chand tried to dispossess Mam Raj, which forced Mam Raj to file suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Karnal on 12.10.1977. Mam Raj went in appeal, which was allowed by Shri R.K. Nehru, Additional District Judge, Karnal on 12.1.1979 and Puran Chand was restrained from dispossessing Mam Raj from land measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marlas. During the pendency of the appeal, Mam Raj died and his son Nathi Ram and widow Bhagwanti filed application for bringing them on record as his legal representatives. Puran Chand forcibly took possession and illegally dispossessed them, which forced them to move application under Section 152 CPC, which was decided by District Judge, Karnal on 12.9.1980 holding that this application was unnecessary and Nathi Ram and Smt. Bhagwanti may pursue the remedy of getting back possession of the suit land from Puran Chand and Amrit. Thereafter, Nathi Ram and Smt. Bhagwanti put in execution. Puran Chand filed objection. Objections were dismissed by Senior Sub Judge, Karnal. Warrant of possession was issued. Halqa Kanungo delivered possession of the land to Nathi Ram and Smt. Bhagwanti. An entry was made in roznamcha vakayati regarding delivery of possession of the land to Nathi Ram and Smt. Bhagwanti. Puran Chand in collusion with the patwari got changed the entries in khasra girdwari for Rabi 1988 in their favour but without any notice to Nathi Ram and Smt. Bhagwanti. Taking advantage of the wrong entries in khasra girdawari, Puran Chand again took possession and sowed paddy crop. Thereupon Nathi Ram and Smt. Bhagwanti filed suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession which was decreed by Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 27.11.1992. Puran Chand went in appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 11.11.1993. In other words, Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra affirmed the decree for possession passed in favour of Nathi Ram and Smt. Bhagwanti against Puran Chand vide order dated 27.11.1992. Now the present suit namely Civil suit No. 265 of 1994 has been filed for possession by Puran Chand against Nathi Ram. Nathi Ram contested the suit. By way of amendment, he wanted to plead that he has been in possession for the last 56 years and two months and his possession during this period has been continuous. He never paid any rent or anything else for the use and occupation of the land. His possession is adverse and hostile to the knowledge of the whole world including the plaintiff which has ripened into ownership and plaintiff has no right to ask for possession from him.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner (defendant) submitted that he should have been allowed to take this plea by way of amendment. He could not take this plea earlier. During this period, he was forcibly dispossessed but on the intervention of the Court, possession was restored to him. His possession has, thus, to be viewed as unbroken and continuous. Plaintiff has no right to or interest in the land and as such he cannot ask for possession. It was submitted that in the suit filed by Mam Raj in the year 1976, Mam Raj had taken specific plea that he had been in possession for the last 35 years as owner, which was dismissed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Karnal on 12.10.1977. Appeal of Mam Raj was allowed by Additional District Judge vide order dated 12.1.1979. Puran Chand was restrained from dispossessing Mam Raj forcibly. During the pendency of the appeal, Mam Raj was dispossessed. Mam Raj filed suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which was decreed. In suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, question of title was not involved. Suit was decreed merely because Mam Raj (dead) represented by Nathi Ram and Smt. Bhagwanti LRs was in possession within 6 months preceding the date of suit. In suit for injunction, one of the issues framed was "Whether the plaintiff has been and is presently in the occupation of the suit land as owner ? OPP". On this issue, learned Additional District Judge focused his attention to determining whether the plaintiff could be dispossessed only according to law. He did not give any categoric finding that plaintiff was not in adverse possession nor any issue as to adverse possession was raised. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plea as to adverse possession could not be raised in suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It could be raised only in the title suit. He could not file second appeal as his appeal had been allowed by Additional District Judge and he had decreed his suit for permanent injunction restraining Puran Chand from dispossessing him otherwise than in due course of law. It was submitted that proposed amendment should have been allowed as his case was that he had been in possession for the last 56 years and two months. During this period, he has never paid any batai or lagan to any one. His possession was open, hostile and adverse to the knowledge of the whole world including Puran Chand. In the year 1976, Mam Raj had pleaded that Mam Raj had been in cultivating possession of the agricultural land for the last 35 years as owner. In Har Lal v. Manbhar, 1987-2 PLR 162 : 1987 RRR 440 (P&H) it was held that "it is well settled that the approach towards permission to amend the written statement is more liberal than towards the amendment of the plaint." In Surinderjit Singh v. Jagjit Kaur, 1998-2 PLR 791 : 1998(3) RCR(Civil) 680 (P&H) it was held that "no doubt, amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit if it goes to help the Court in deciding the case between the parties in just and fair manner. It is well settled law that, however negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. A plaintiff may add a new cause of action and the defendant may add a new defence. Even a new case may be allowed to be introduced. The Court has to take into consideration even subsequent events. Another principle which is also usually considered is that as far as possible, multiplicity of suits should be avoided." In Sucha Singh and another v. Chanan Singh and others, 1988 RLR 231 : 1988(1) RRR 257 (P&H), it was held that "Court should be liberal in permitting necessary amendment instead of leaving the parties to separate suits subsequently especially when other side can be adequately compensated by awarding costs." In M/s Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleading in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation of particular causes of the action must take." ;