Gurdev Singh, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the suit brought lay Mehar Singh to pre -empt the sale of agricultural property made by his brother's son Bakshish Singh on 11th January, 1967. The suit was instituted on 11th January, 1968, the last day of limitation. In the plaint Mehar Singh in asserting that he had a right superior to that of the vendees Banta Singh and others averred that the Plaintiff was the brother of the vendor Defendant No. 6 while Defendants 1 -5 were not in any manner related to the said vendor. In resisting his claim the Defendant -vendees denied that the Plaintiff Mehar Singh was the brother of the vendor Bakshish Singh. On being faced with this plea, the Plaintiff promptly realised that he had committed a mistake in stating his relationship with the vendor in paragraph 3 of the plaint. Accordingly, on 1st April, 1968, he applied to the Court under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to amend paragraph 3 of the plaint so as to correctly describe his relationship with the vendor as in fact he was brother of the father of the vendor. This prayer was sought to be justified on the following plea: In para No. 3 of the plaint Through a clerical omision the words "father of the" have been omitted after the word "the" in the 1st line of para No. 3. This is merely a mistake of typing. The Plaintiff is not the brother of Defendant No. 6 but is his father's brother. The mistake is thus patent. In order to correct the misdescription of the relationship of the Plaintiff with the vendor that has been done due to the omission of typing, it is prayed that in the interest of justice the following amendment in the plaint be allowed: After the word "the" in the 1st line of para No. 3 of the plaint and before the word vendor insert the word "father of the".
(2.) THIS prayer was accepted by the trial Court on 6th May, 1968, and in view of the provisions contained in clause Thirdly of Section 15(1)(b) of the Punjab Pre -emption Act the suit of the Plaintiff for possession of the land in question by pre -emption was decreed on payment of Rs. 12,887. In appeal against that decree the sole grievance voiced on behalf of the Appellant was that the trial Court should not have allowed the amendment of the plaint as by that time the period of limitation for the suit of pre -emption had long expired and the Plaintiff could not be permitted to introduce a new ground of pre -emption. Finding no merit in this contention, the learned District Judge upheld the trial Court's decree. In this second appeal, the sole question requiring consideration is whether the amendment of the plaint referred to above was rightly allowed by the trial Court. The Appellant's learned Counsel Mr. D.D. Jain, has argued that in suits for pre -emption the exact ground on the basis of which the Plaintiff asserts his superior right of pre -emption has to be stated and if the ground that he urges originally in his plaint is found to be either non -existent or not made out then the suit must fail as after the period of limitation for the suit has expired the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to set up a new ground in support of the suit for pre -emption by way of amendment of the plaint since no amount of costs awarded can compensate the Defendant who acquires a valuable right on the expiry of the period of limitation.
(3.) IN support of this contention he has placed reliance upon a recent decision of my Ford the Chief Justice in Shankar Singh v. Chanan Singh, I.L.R. (1968) 2 P&H 211 :, 1968 P.L.R. 455. Therein while dealing with the question of amendment of plaint, His Lordship after referring to Rulia Ram v. Ram Chander Dass : A.I.R. 1933 Lah. 774, and Chandgi Ram v. Rabi Dutt : A.I.R. 1952 P&h 281, observed as follows: The basis is that the specific ground on which preferential right of pre -emption is sought must be pleaded in the suit within the period of limitation. In this case all that Chanan Singh Plaintiff did was to say that the vendors are his collaterals, but Section 15 of the Punjab Act I of 1913 in such relationship by itself does not give a right of pre -emption. A particular defined relationship does give a right of pre -emption and if on the ground of relationship such a right is claimed then obviously the particular relationship referred to as a ground in Section 15 of Punjab Act I of 1918 has to be stated in the plaint within the period of limitation. If after the period of limitation such an attempt is made it cannot be permitted to defeat a right that has accrued to the vendee to defeat the pre -emptor's claim as not coming within the statutory provision upon which reliance is placed. Obviously the learned Judge was wrong in allowing the amendment.;