Civil Revision No. 4865 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4865 of 2007 Date of decision:- 04.3.2009. Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner Versus Punjab Wakf Board and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Pali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. JASWANT SINGH J. Petitioner/plaintiff-Jaswant singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.8.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Moga whereby the application moved by him under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration on 1.10.2003 against the respondent/defendant-Punjab Wakf Board that they are lessees regarding the land measuring 50 kanals comprised in Khasra No.97 min (as described in the head note of the plaint) alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction, as the defendants were seeking to forcibly and illegally dispossessed them. It is averred that subsequently, since the defendants passed an order dated 30.1.2004 cancelling the lease deed of the petitioner-plaintiffs relating to the same Civil Revision No. 4865 of 2007 -2- land, the petitioner-plaintiffs were compelled to move the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC fir amendment of the plaint as well as the prayer clause seeking to challenge the said cancellation. It is averred that the suit was at the initial stage and the amendment would not change the nature of the suit nor will it cause any prejudice to the defendants besides being most essential for the just decision of the case. The application was contested by the respondents-defendants. It was averred that the cancellation order dated 30.1.2004 provide a different cause of action to the petitioner-plaintiffs and therefore they were free to file a fresh suit rather than seeking an amendment of the plaint, as the amendment would relate back to the date of filing of the suit. The amendment application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.8.2007. Hence, the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It is not in dispute that the order dated 13.1.2004 whereby respondents-defendants have cancelled the lease relates to the suit land and is further formal expression of the action, which was challenged in the first instance by filing the suit on 1.10.2003. It also cannot be disputed that if the petitioner-plaintiffs were to file a subsequent suit challenging the order dated 30.1.2004, the plaintiffs and the defendants would lead substantially the same evidence as the one in the present suit, thus, resulting into wastage of time and effort of all concerned including the court. Therefore, in my opinion, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the proposed amendment deserves to be allowed as it will not change the nature of the suit nor will it cause any prejudice to the respondents-defendants, who shall be free to raise all objections in their written statement. Civil Revision No. 4865 of 2007 -3- In view of the aforesaid observations, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.8.2007 is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking proposed amendment is allowed. March 04, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE