CR No.5307 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5307 of 2010 Decided on : 23.08.2010 Gurmeet Singh ... Petitioner versus Nisha Handa & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present : Mr. R.S.Pandher, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 14.08.2010 whereby his application for amendment of plaint has been declined. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the defendant-respondent No.1 has no right to raise any kind of unauthorised construction/encroachment in/around house No.1317, Guru Teg Bahadur Complex, SAS Nagar (Mohali) in contravention to the site plan approved by proforma respondents with a further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent No.1 from raising any kind of illegal and unauthorised construction and mandatory injunction directing the defendants-respondents to demolish all kind of illegal and unauthorised construction in rear courtyard of house No.1317, Guru Teg Bahadur Complex, SAS Nagar (Mohali). During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff- CR No.5307 of 2010 -2- petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code alleging that while drafting the plaint, counsel for the petitioner inadvertently omitted to mention the details of earlier litigation between the parties and now the petitioner wants to amend the plaint to give the details of the earlier litigation. It was also submitted that no declaration was claimed against the defendants so the headnote of the suit be also allowed to be amended by deleting the words “suit for declaration to the effect that the defendant has no right to raise any kind of unauthorised construction in/around the house No.1317, Guru Teg Bahadur Complex, SAS Nagar (Mohali) in contravention of the site plan approved by profoma defendants No.1 & 2.” It was further submitted that the suit was at the initial stage and the amendment was necessary for the just and fair decision of the case. However, the trial court has illegally rejected the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the non-compliance of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 1(j) is only a technical fault and do not go into the root of the case and therefore, an opportunity has to be given to the plaintiff-petitioner to amend his case, which was at the initial stage. In the application for amendment, the petitioner is claiming that the factum of previous litigation could not be mentioned inadvertently by his counsel. However, from the pleadings of the petitioner, it is crystal clear that petitioner has made an attempt to conceal the factum of earlier litigation from the knowledge of the Court. It may be mentioned that in para with regard to the previous litigation the petitioner has specifically mentioned that no such suit CR No.5307 of 2010 -3- between the parties regarding same subject matter is pending. Thus, it cannot be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the omission regarding mentioning of earlier litigation was inadvertent and bona fide. It is well settled law that no amendment can be allowed to fill up the lacuna. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. August 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) sonia JUDGE