C.R. No. 4211 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4211 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.8.2009 Piara Singh & another .......... Petitioners Versus XEN, Public Works Department & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 26.5.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Sr. Divn.), Ropar, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff / petitioners for amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed. The plaintiff / petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, in any manner, from interfering in the ownership and peaceful possession of the petitioners and also from encroaching the land of the plaintiffs, by way of putting the earth or stone over it and further restraining them from raising any other type of construction, over the land of the plaintiffs, or removing the trees, without following the proper procedure of the land acquisition regarding the land of the plaintiffs. After framing of the issues, the plaintiff / petitioners moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for C.R. No. 4211 of 2009 2 amendment of plaint pleading therein, that the defendants in connivance with the police officials have encroached upon some part of the land of the petitioners. The encroachment was said to be illegal and forcible, without any right, title or interest in the suit property. The plaintiffs sought to amend the suit by converting the suit into one for declaration that the entries in the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 pertaining to the land in dispute showing the possession in in the column of cultivation in the name of District Board / PWD were totally illegal, null and void and had no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs / petitioner. In alternative, relief of possession was sought. The learned trial Court observed that the application moved by the petitioner/ plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 was dismissed and the appeal against order also failed. It was thereafter, that the amendment of suit was sought. The learned trial Court held, that by way of amendment the nature of the suit was sought to be changed, and dismissed the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of the code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the necessity to amend the suit arose, as facts sought to be pleaded were subsequent events which occurred after the filing of the suit. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, as by way of declaration petitioners want to challenge to the revenue entries in the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, which were very much within their knowledge on the date of filing of the suit. The amendment application was not competent in view of the amended C.R. No. 4211 of 2009 3 provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as after the commencement of trial it was not open to the plaintiff / petitioners to seek amendment of suit to plead fact which were within their knowledge or could be found with due diligence. It can not be disputed that revenue entries were in existence at the time of filing of the suit. The amendment sought was otherwise such, which would have changed the nature of suit, which is not permissible in law. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. 6.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE