IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.448 of 2008 Date of decision: March 18, 2008. Gurpreet Singh & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Surjit Kaur ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.S. Paul, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioners have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they, along with the respondent – defendant, are owners in possession of 1/3rd share each in the land descripted in the head-note of the plaint. The above stated land was owned by Maghar Singh (since deceased), who was husband of petitioner – plaintiff No.2. The sole defendant – respondent is the mother of deceased Maghar Singh. Petitioner No.1 – a minor, has joined petitioner No.2 as co- plaintiff with the plea that Maghar Singh in his life time and his wife (plaintiff – petitioner no.2), being issueless, adopted him vide an unregistered adoption deed dated 18.12.1997. Maghar Singh expired on 14.3.1998. His mother, namely, the defendant – respondent has disputed the abvoe stated plea taken on behalf of petitioners. After the parties have led their evidence and the suit was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, the petitioner – plaintiffs moved the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the plea that even before filing of the suit, petitioner – plaintiff No.1 had been again adopted by petitioner No.2 by a registered adoption deed dated 4.12.2003 also. The amendment application, however, has been turned down vide the impugned order, giving rise to this revision petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contends that even if the amendment has been sought belatedly, that by itself is no good ground to deny the same as the defendant – respondent can be suitably compensated with costs. In this regard, he relies upon three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pankaja & Anr. v. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4102, (ii) State of A.P. & Ors. v. M/s Pioneer Builders, 2006(4) Civil Court Cases 668 (SC), and (iii) Ramchandra Sakhram Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D) & Ors., 2007(3) Civil Court Cases 353 (SC) There can be no quarrel with the settled preposition of law that amendment of the pleadings can be allowed at a belated stage also, more so when the proposed amendment goes to the root of the matter and facilitates the court not only to arrive at a just decision but to avoid multiplicity of litigation. However, the above referred principles are to be invoked depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case in hand, the wife and mother of deceased Maghar Singh are pitted against each other. It is not the requirement of law that an adoption deed should essentially be a registered one. If petitioner No.1 was actually adopted by Maghar Singh and his wife in the year 1997, as pleaded by the petitioner – plaintiffs, his subsequent adoption by petitioner No.2 by way of a registered adoption deed is of no consequence. Further, the petitioner – plaintiff No.2 had full knowledge of the alleged registered adoption deed executed by her even before filing of the suit. She, however, chose not to disclose this fact in the pleadings or otherwise till the suit proceedings were concluded. No legal impediment which might have prevented the petitioners against disclosure of the alleged registered adoption deed has been pleaded or proved. Besides, the proposed amendment would amount to de novo commencement of the suit proceedings, which would also be totally contrary to the object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Dismissed. March 18, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge