IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision 143 of 2007. Date of decision March 28, 2008. Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Duggal ….Petitioner. Versus Sh. Udami Ram ….Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. G. C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Benu Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Ex parte. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This is the plaintiff’s revision against the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 5, Shimla, H.P., rejecting application for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff had prayed that he be allowed to amend the suit incorporating therein that if the defendant, on the basis of wrong revenue entries, purportedly showing him in possession of the suit 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - property, attempts to take forcible possession, then a decree for possession be passed in his favour. Another amendment sought for was that the defendant had manipulated / obtained revenue entries in his favour in case No. 53/2001 decided by the Collector, Shimla in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequential reliefs flowing from these amendments were also prayed for. The learned trial Court, without looking into the mandate of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure proceeded to dismiss the application only on the basis that the plaintiff has not given the time, date of his dispossession etc. This is, to say the least, exercise of jurisdiction in an illegal and irregular manner. The amendment sought for was that the relief of possession be granted in case the plaintiff is dispossessed and secondly that the revenue entries had been changed without the knowledge of the plaintiff and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions. Surely, evidence was not required to be pleaded and the merit of amendment was not required to be judged at the preliminary stage. The learned trial Court was duty bound to - 3 - follow the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & others v. K.K.Modi & others, AIR 2006 SC 1647. This revision is accordingly allowed. The amended plaint filed is taken on record of the case. A direction is issued to the learned trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Records of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. Parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 24.6.2008. March 28, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.