"The Amendment In The Pleadings, By Way Of Adding Mutually Destructive and Inconsistent Pleas/Reliefs/Claims, Not Permissible": P&H HC

The bench comprising Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta was dealing with a revision petition challenging the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ludhiana.

The case came up as a result of the Trial Court's order dismissing the application by the petitioner for amendment of his plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

Some undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a Civil Suit against the respondents for seeking the decree for a declaration that the suit property was the property of respondent No.1 and the Sale Deed allegedly executed in favor of respondent No.2 was illegal because it was made with collusion and fraud.

Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for seeking the amendment in the plaint for the addition of relief stating 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'. Therefore, the said gift is revoked, and the suit property deserved to be reverted along with its ownership and possession. However, the trial Court, vide the impugned order, dismissed the said application. Hence, the instant petition.

The court while deciding the matter took into consideration the contention of the petitioner that the Trust sold the property to respondent No.2 in contravention of the object of the gift. This very relief along with Para 5-A was sought to be added in the plaint but could not be incorporated though they are material for the proper adjudication of the dispute.

The court came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the afore-referred contentions because the relief originally claimed in the plaint and the relief sought to be added by amendment, are contradictory, the same is not permissible.

However, I do not find any merit in the afore-referred contentions because a perusal of the plaint Annexure P-1 reveals that the petitioner has sought therein the decree for the declaration to the effect that the suit property is the property of respondent No.1-Trust by way of gift and he has, further, assailed the Sale Deed executed by the said Trust in favor of respondent No.2, on the ground of the said property being non-transferable but by way of the proposed amendment, he has 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 Para 5-A in the plaint, containing averments to the same effect. Thus, it is 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, is mutually destructive being contradictory to each other. 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 to the contention of the sale deed being violative of the very purpose of the gift, the court held that the petitioner has not mentioned in the proposed Para No.5-A whether any gift deed had been executed by his father, at the time of donating the suit property to the Trust or not neither has he mentioned which part/clause/condition thereof has been violated by executing the said Sale Deed.

Further, the petitioner has been unable to provide any fair, candid, and plausible explanation for the delay of five years.

As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the court in the present petition held that the impugned order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, infirmity, or perversity that may call for any interference by this Court.

As a result, the present revision petition being sans any merit is dismissed.

Case Title : Malkiat Singh v Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust & Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 56

Click Here To Read/Download Order