IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1591 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.11.2009 Ashwani Bansal .....Petitioner versus Ajay Kumar Jain .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been permitted to amend the Civil Suit in order to withdraw some alleged admissions previously made by him. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the record perused. It appears that there is multiple litigation between the parties and in one of the cases, a direction was issued by this Court for a fact C.R. No.1591 of 2008 (O&M) 2 finding enquiry to be conducted by the learned Civil Judge, Chandigarh, regarding total area under the tenancy of the respondent in the building which was subject matter of the said previous litigation. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact finding enquiry has concluded in favour of the petitioner. He apprehends that the impugned order whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been permitted to amend the plaint and withdraw the previous admission, might affect directly or indirectly the findings returned in the above stated enquiries. In my considered view, mere amendment of the plaint can have no bearing on the fact finding enquiry report submitted by the learned Civil Judge, Chandigarh, on the appreciation of the material produced before him. Similarly and notwithstanding the amendment under challenge, the petitioner-defendant can always prove that the admission made by the respondent-plaintiff previously was factually correct. With these observations and liberty, this revision petition is disposed of. Dasti. 26-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE