IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.5528 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.10.2010 Prem Chand. ....... Petitioner through Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate. Versus The State of Punjab and others. ....... Respondents through Shri B.B.S.Teji, Senior D.A.G., Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.9.2008 by which his prayer for amendment of the plaint has been declined. Initially, the petitioner, by filing a suit for declaration, had challenged order dated 4.4.2003 by which his service had been terminated. The suit was filed on 29.5.2006. Before filing the suit, he had also m ade a representation to the Director General of Police, Home Guard, Punjab to consider his plea regarding illegal termination of service. That representative was declined on 24.7.2006 which necessitated the amendment. The petitioner,by virtue of this amendment, sought to incorporate a challenge to order dated 24.7.2006 as well. The trial Court, however, declined this prayer on the ground that this was merely a ploy to C.R. No.5528 of 2008 (O&M) -2- .... delay the proceedings and to create hindrance in the decision of the case. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the instant revision petition has been filed in which the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the law of amendment of pleadings is essentially to be construed liberally and in any eventuality, the challenge which was sought to be incorporated to order dated 24.7.2006 was more or less in conformity to the earlier pleadings of the petitioner and did not alter or vary the suit or the prayer made in the original plaint. The aforesaid contention has been opposed by the counsel for the respondents, who has contended that it is merely a ploy to bring the suit within limitation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition deserves to succeed. The petitioner had challenge the termination of his service vide order dated 4.4.2003 and after filing of the suit, the representation which he had preferred, had been answered by the competent authority and in such an eventuality, mere addition of a challenge to the order by which the representation was rejected, could not be termed to be unnecessary or alien to the facts of the case. Besides, the application was filed promptly and cannot be considered to be malicious. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. October 28,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge