Civil Revision No. 1791 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1791 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.03.2010 Jagroop Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Gurbax Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.2.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Executing Court, vide which the application moved by petitioner No.1, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the objection petition filed against the execution of the decree of possession, granted in favour of the decree-holder, stands dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant in the suit from interfering in the possession, on the plea that the plaintiff was put in possession as prospective vendee in pursuance to the agreement to sell. The suit was contested by the defendant-decree-holder, who filed a counter-claim claiming possession on the basis of ownership. The learned trial Court, while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction, accepted the counter-claim and passed a decree for possession, on the basis of ownership in favour of the decree-holder. Civil Revision No. 1791 of 2010 (O&M) -2- When the execution application was filed, the judgment- debtor filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas the petitioners herein filed objections under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming to be third party in possession of the suit property. Title to property was claimed by the petitioners, as proprietors of the village, claiming it to be the property belonging to proprietors of the village, in which the Central Government had no role to play. The title of the decree-holder, which was based on allotment by the Central Government to an ex-serviceman, was thus challenged. After the notice was issued and the reply was filed, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed, to change the cause of action to assert, that, in fact, they were the intending vendees, from the owner of the suit property. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by holding, that the amendment, would change the total cause of action, which is not permissible by amendment, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Malkeet Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contends, that the amendment was sought at the initial stage, and was necessary for just and proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The learned Court, should have allowed the amendment, specially in view of the settled law, that the law of amendment is very liberal, and all the amendments, which are necessary for adjudication of the real controversy between the parties, are required to be allowed. Civil Revision No. 1791 of 2010 (O&M) -3- The decree-holder could have been compensated with costs for the delay and inconvenience. The impugned order, thus, was liable to be set aside. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Once, it is not disputed that by way of amendment the petitioners were seeking to change the complete cause of action, the learned Executing Court was right in dismissing the application. It is well settled law, that the party in the garb of amendment, cannot change the cause of action to the prejudice of other party. The application prima facie was an attempt to delay the execution proceedings, and harass the decree-holder by raising one objection after the another, and that too on a totally different cause of action. Payment of costs is not a remedy, for every wrong, the party cannot be allowed to suffer, merely because he can be compensated with costs. The decree-holder was first forced to contest the case, and after being successful in obtaining the decree, is facing objection one after the another. The application for amendment was not bona fide. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Executing Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) March 23, 2010 Judge R.S.