@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Denial of permission to the plaintiff to amend the plaint warrants no interference in revision.
2. The vendor in this suit for pre-emption was stated and described to be the widow of Rati Ram, the last male owner of the land in suit and a right of pre-emption was asserted by the plaintiff on her being so. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the vendor Shanti Devi had inherited this land from her husband and he being Ratti Ram''s brother''s son had a preferential right of pre-emption. This claim, thus, fell under S. 15(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (thereinafter referred to as ''the Act''.) Pre-emption was also sought under S. 15(1) thereof on the ground of being a co-sharer of the vendor.
3. It is now well-settled that where the property is inherited by a female from her father or husband, the right of pre-emption is restricted to that available under S. 15(2) of the Act and it cannot be claimed under S. 15(1) thereof. This was so held by the Full Bench in Kalwa Vs. Vasakha Singh and Another, . Seen in this context, the amendment sought, namely, then addition of the words "alleged to be" before the word "widow" in head-note of the plaint and the deletion of sub-para (ii) of para 3 of the plaint, whereby the right of pre-emption by virtue of the plaintiff being the husband''s brother''s son and the vendor Shanti Devi having inherited the land in suit from her husband was asserted, was not as innocuous as was sought to be made out. By asserting that the vendor had got this land from her husband, the plaintiff was confined to seeking a decree for pre-emption under S. 15(2) of the Act. To this extent, it was right argued by Mr. M. L. Sarin, counsel for the respondent, that the description of the vendors as the widow of Rati Ram constituted an admission by the plaintiff, the withdrawal of which would constitute grave prejudice to the vendee-defendant. It was contended in this behalf that if the amendment prayed for was allowed, it would make available to the plaintiff a ground for pre-emption, namely that of being a co-sharer, which otherwise stood barred. Reference here was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., , for the proposition that no amendment can be permitted which completely displaces the opposite party from the admissions made in the pleadings.
4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand contended that an admission made by a party could be withdrawn or explained away. He argued in this behalf that the plaintiff had been misled into describing the vendor as the widow of Rati Ram as she had been so described in the sale deed and in the interests of justice, therefore, the amendment deserved to be allowed. He relied in this behalf upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another, . The plaintiff in that case had described himself in the plaint as the son of the uterine brother of one Rama Shankar Prasad. Later, he sought amendment of the plaint to delete the word "uterine" from the plaint. this amendment was allowed by the trial Court, but the High Court disallowed it holding that the word "uterine" had got a significance and may wok in favour of either side to a very great extent. The Supreme Court set aside this order of the High Court holding that the trial Judge, granting the application for amendment was satisfied that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, amendment of the pleading was necessary. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction for a reason which was untenable ought not to have interfered with the order made by the trial Court. It was observed that ordinarily, it is well-settled that unless there is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court, High Court would not interfere with the order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
5. Considered in this light too, no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court can be discerned to warrant interference in revision. The reasons set out for refusing amendment and the likely prejudicial consequences to the vendee if it had been allowed, amply bear out the correctness of the impugned order.
6. This revision petition is accordingly hereby dismissed. Costs of this petition shall be costs in the suit. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500/-.
7. Petition dismissed.
