IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.6 of 2010 Date of decision : June 18, 2010 Saroop and another …Petitioners. Versus Attar Singh and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.1. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Plaintiffs-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27th November, 2009, Annexure P-5, of the trial Court, whereby their application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed. 3. Petitioners have filed a suit in the trial Court against the present respondents, for declaration that they are co-sharers with the defendants-respondents in the suit land. In the original plaint, a reference is there to the gift deed, which was given effect to vide Mutation No.35 dated 22nd July, 1997 and also to a Will dated 27th June, 1994, allegedly made Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… by the father of the plaintiffs-petitioners and defendant- respondent No.1. 4. After the start of the trial, plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint. They stated that after the institution of the suit, defendant-respondent No.1 had transferred a portion of the suit land in favour of two persons, namely Balwan Singh and Devinder Singh and they were required to be added as party. Another amendment, which was intended to be made, pertained to the validity of gift, on the basis of which Mutation No.35, aforesaid, had been attested, though in the original plaint, validity of the gift deed had not been disputed. Another amendment intended to be made was that the gift, which was given effect to vide aforesaid Mutation No.35 was in respect of three Khasra numbers, i.e. 130/1, 140 and 123, but in the original plaint only two Khasra numbers, i.e. 130/1 and 140 had been mentioned. Permission was sought to add Khasra No.123 also. Some other minor amendments were also sought to be made in the heading and some formal paragraphs. 5. Trial Court has dismissed the application, vide impugned order, holding that the same was belated, having been made after the commencement of the trial. 6. Amendment regarding addition of two persons as party to the suit, on the plea that during the pendency of the suit a part of the suit land had been transferred in their favour, could not have been rejected, as it was necessitated by a subsequent event. Addition of Khasra No.123 in the …3… relevant para of the plaint to indicate that it was also the subject matter of the gift that was given effect to vide Mutation No.35 dated 22nd July, 1997, being of formal nature, could have also not been rejected. 7. As regards amendment to add the plea that the gift was manipulated or the result of connivance between defendant No.1 and the revenue staff, the same could not have been allowed as it would have meant permitting the plaintiffs to withdraw from an admission already made in para- 6 of the plaint. 8. In view of the abovestated position, petition is partly allowed and amendment in the original plaint is permitted to be carried out to the following extent: In para-6 of the plaint, plaintiffs shall be permitted to add Khasra No.123, being part of the subject matter of gift, implemented by Mutation No.35 dated 22nd July, 1997, and they shall also be permitted to implead Balwan Singh and Devinder Singh as defendants, on account of transfer having been made in their favour, during the pendency of the suit and also to make additions in the plaint about the alleged transfer in favour of Balwan Singh and Devinder Singh. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, as having become infructuous. June 18, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J