- (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated March 27, 1991 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint has been dismissed by the trial Court.
(2.) In order to understand the controversy, it is necessary to notice few facts :- Petitioner's husband Jagmer Singh had a son, namely, Baldev Singh from his firstwife. After her death, he married again and was blessed with a son from the second wife, whose name is Gurkirat Singh. The second wife also died. Thereafter, Jagmer Singh married Harchand Kaur, the present petitioner. Harchand Kaur executed a power of attorney in favour of Baldev Singh and Gurkirat Singh sons of Jagmer Singh, born from latter's first wife and (he second wife respectively. Harinder Singh son of Baldev Singh and Harpal Singh son of Gurkirat Singh filed a suit on January 15, 1978 against Harchand Kaur. The latter was sued through her attorneys, Baldev Sigh and Gurkirat Singh. The attorneys admitted the claim of Harjinder Singh and Harpal Singh wherein it had been pleaded that the parties constituted a Hindu undivided family and on dissolution thereof, property fell to their shares. Having regard to the stand taken by the attorneys of Harchand Kaur, the suit filed by Haridner Sigh and Harpal Singh was decreed.
(3.) Harchand Kaur, the present petitioner having come to know of the fraud played on her by her attorneys filed a suit on March 25, 1989, for possession alleging that the decree dated June 15, 1978 passed in civil suit No. 93 of April 1, 1978, titled "Harinder Singh and another v. Harchand Kaur' was null and void and not binding on her rights, the same having been obtained by playing a fraud and on the basis of misrepresentation of facts. In the suit filed by the petitioner an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint was filed by her on November 19, 1990. One of the amendments sought was that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land, the same having been purchased by her and the other amendment sought was that the plaintiffs in the earlier suit, namely, Harinder Singh and Harpal Singh were minors at the time of institution of the suit and thus the suit could not have been filed by them personally, without their next friend and, therefore, no decree could be passed in their favour. It was further stated by her that there was no question of any family settlement/partition amongst the parties, as the property in question was neither joint Hindu family property nor the parties ever constituted a Hindu undivided family. She further stated that she was the absolute owner of the suit properly and that there could be no Hindu undivided family property between the male and female members. The said application was opposed by the defendant-respondents, who are none else but the plaintiffs of the earlier suit. As noticed above, the application for amendment of plaint was dismissed.;