LAW FOR ALL

Section 15(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (for short, 'the Act').- Amrik Singh (brother of respondent No.2) executed sale deed dated 21.5.1979 in favour of the petitioners and respondent No.1 in respect of 27 kanals 4 marlas land for a consideration of Rs.37,500/-. The sale deed was registered on 23.5.1979. Respondent No.2 challenged the sale deed in Civil Suit No.353/1981 and claimed pre-emption under Section 15(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (for short, 'the Act'). "Whether suit land is not pre-emptible in view of Section 17A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act."= On the doctrine of relation back, which generally governs amendment of pleadings unless for reasons the court excludes the applicability of the doctrine in a given case, the petition for eviction as amended could be deemed to have been filed originally as such and the evidence shall have to be appreciated in the light of the averments made in the amended petition."; The plaintiff by asking for amendment sought to introduce an additional ground on the plea that besides being the brother, he is also a co-sharer in the suit land. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and is evident from the judgment impugned as also the report of the trial Court dated 7.3.2006, there is sufficient material/evidence already on record i.e. prior to the introduction of the amendment to establish that the plaintiff is the co-sharer with the defendant-vendor. Through the amendment only, a new ground has been incorporated and not the new relief. Since the suit seeking the relief of pre-emption was instituted with the time, by introduction of a new ground to support the relief, the suit cannot become time barred.' It is settled law as is evident from the ratio of the judgment in the case of Siddalingamma (supra), that the court in appropriate case while allowing the amendment, may restrict the application of doctrine of relation back and permit the amendment from the date of the amendment. In the present case, the order of the Apex Court dated 10.11.1994 is clear and unambiguous in its terms. No such restriction has been imposed. To the contrary, the amendment rejected by this Court has been allowed primarily on the ground that the amendment is based upon admitted facts on record. I am of the considered view that the intention of the Apex Court in allowing the amendment was/is to apply the amendment without excluding the doctrine or relation back which normally and generally governs the amendment of pleadings."; A reading of the order passed by this Court shows that the application for amendment filed by respondent No.2 was allowed without any rider/condition. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that this Court was of the view that the amendment in the plaint would relate back to the date of filing the suit. That apart, the learned Single Judge has independently considered the issue of limitation and rightly concluded that the amended suit was not barred by time. The argument of the learned counsel that the suit could not be decreed in view of the Haryana Amendment Act No.10 of 1995 does not require consideration because no such plea was argued before the High Court and we do not find any valid ground to allow the petitioners to raise such plea for the first time.