Chandigarh, March 31, 2022: While dealing with a revision petition assailing Trial Court’s order of dismissal of the plaintiff/petitioner’s application for amendment of his plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is well-settled that the amendment in the pleadings, by way of adding mutually destructive inconsistent/ contradictory pleas/ reliefs/ claims, is not permissible.
The Bench of Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta was looking into a revision petition assailing the order of the Trial Court dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for seeking amendment in the plaint.
The matter stemmed from a civil suit filed by the petitioner (as a plaintiff) against the respondents (defendants before the trial Court) for seeking the decree for a declaration to the effect that the suit property, was the property of the first respondent and the Sale Deed allegedly executed by this respondent in favour of the second respondent was illegal, null and void and was the result of collusion and fraud and was, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Herein, an Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff seeking an amendment in a paragraph in his plaint as also an amendment in the prayer clause. The prayer clause was sought to be amended to the effect that the suit property deserved to be reverted back to him and its ownership was required to be recorded in his name, while the plain was sought to be amended to aver that the suit property was gifted for the welfare of the children of the Village and the said Sale Deed was executed in violation of the very purpose of ‘gift’ and therefore, the said gift stood revoked and the suit property deserved to be reverted back to him as the owner of the same and its possession was also required to be restored to him.
However, the trial Court, vide the impugned order, has dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition.
Essentially, the claim of the petitioner was that his father had gifted the suit property to the first respondent (Trust) for the welfare of the children in the Village but the Trust had sold the same to the second respondent in contravention of the very object of the gift and therefore, the suit property is liable to revert back to the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that somehow the above-mentioned claim could not be incorporated in the original plaint whereas the same is material and necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
The Court at the very outset recorded its disagreement with the counsel’s contention on the ground that in the plaint, the petitioner sought a decree for a declaration that the suit property is the property of the first respondent by way of gift and he in fact assailed the Sale Deed executed by the said Trust in favour of the second respondent on the ground of the said property being non-transferable, but the Court noted that by way of the proposed amendment, he prayed for adding the relief qua his own ownership over the suit property by way of its reversion on account of the violation of the terms of the said gift on the part of the Trust and also the amended paragraph in the plaint, containing averments to the same effect.
Thus, the Court opined that it was explicit that the relief, as originally claimed in the plaint and the relief, as sought to be added therein by way of the proposed amendment, were mutually destructive being contradictory to each other.
Again this backdrop, the Court expounded that it is well-settled that the amendment in the pleadings, by way of adding mutually destructive inconsistent/ contradictory pleas/ reliefs/ claims, is not permissible.
As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the Court opined that the impugned order, as passed by the Court below, did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court.
Resultantly, the present revision petition was dismissed.