CMPMO No. 249 of 2011. 30.11.2011 Present: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A.G., for respondents No. 1 to 3. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal. It is undisputed before me that the second amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC which has been filed by the petitioner herein to permit him to amend suit for the relief of damages has been dismissed. 2. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division). I do not find any illegality in the order passed. The Court rightly holds that earlier application for amendment was allowed on 20.3.2010. On going through the pleadings of the parties, I find that the application for amendment which has been instituted before the learned trial Court is terse and does not meet with the requirements of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 which requires at the least that basic facts be pleaded, even if laxity of pleadings is to be condoned on the ground of “moufisl” pleadings. What I find from the submissions made before me by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that no new fact is being introduced and all that the petitioner claims is relief of liquidated damages. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General opposes the petition on the ground that these facts were in the knowledge of the petitioner herein at the time of filing of first application and that it is deliberate omission on behalf of the petitioner and there is no illegality in the order. She submits that the relief as claimed now is time barred as it has not been instituted within the period of limitation. So far as the second contention of the State/respondent is concerned, it will be open to them to take up this plea/contest it in the main suit as at the time of allowing of the amendment the Court does not go into the question of limitation. 4. I find that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) can not be faulted with on the principles as applied by him. However, taking into consideration the fact that the amendment only claims an additional relief in terms of liquidated damages, I set aside the order of the learned trial Court and allow the amendment as prayed for by the petitioner herein which will be subject to the petitioner herein paying Rs.8800/- (Rs. Eight thousand and eight hundred) as costs to the respondent/State on the first date of appearance before the learned trial Court which is fixed for 30.12.2011. It is clarified that in case of non payment of costs, this application shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the order of the learned trial Court shall revive. This case will not be treated as a precedent in any other case. Petition stands disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud),J. November 30, 2011. (jai)