- (1.) Amardeep Singh etc.-petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this civil revision petition against Harbhajan Singh etc.-respondents/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.2.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in Civil Suit No.377 dated 24.10.2005 titled as "Darshan Kaur and another v. Harbhajan Singh and another", vide which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of plaint has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued in this case. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and contested this petition and none appeared for respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
(2.) From the record, I find that Darshan Kaur and Amardeep Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners of properties as described in the head note of the plaint and suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner and for joint possession of the land. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. In the application, it has been stated that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are joint owners of the property fully described in the head note of the plaint and for grant of permanent injunction and for joint possession and the defendants have also filed a suit for possession of one house against the plaintiffs situated in Village Hussainpura. Both the suits were consolidated with each other and the evidence is being recorded in case titled as "Darshan Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh and others. The plaintiffs in the suit titled as "Harbhajan Singh v. Darshan Kaur had pleaded that the house in dispute in the said suit had been purchased by Swaran Singh son of Teja Singh and construction was raised with the income and sale of the ancestral property. However, due to inadvertence and lack of proper guidance, the plaintiff could not plead the factum that the properties in dispute, was purchased from the income and sale of the ancestral properties.
(3.) The defendants contested this application and stated that proposed amendment cannot be allowed as it will cause prejudice to them. They also pleaded that Swaran Singh father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and grand-father of plaintiff No.2 and father of defendants was owner in possession of the land and the proposed amendment is inconsistent to the plea taken by the plaintiffs in that suit and no sufficient cause is explained as to why it has been filed at the belated stage. The applicants have not stated in the plaint that the suit properties became the ancestral properties of the parties to the suit.;