IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3269 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 26.11.2010 Dr. Chander Bhan ......petitioner vs. Satish and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. D. D. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) CM No. 30300-CII of 2010 Application is allowed. Site Plan is permitted to be taken on record. CR No. 3269 of 2010 Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by learned trial Court on 18.1.2010 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint, terms of compromise and judgment & decree, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. Plaintiff-Dr. Chander Bhan and defendant Jai Dev Gupta are the real brothers. Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the shop situated at Sampla Mandi. The shop in suit was described by boundaries in the plaint. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement and a compromise was recorded on 10.10.1987 and the suit decreed in terms of the said compromise. Subsequently, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint, terms of compromise and judgment & decree so as to describe the property in dispute with more details with particulars as per revenue record and plot number. The said application has been declined by learned trial Court for the reason that such amendment will change the entire nature of the case and will affect on the rights of the third parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of this Court reported as 2008 (1) PLR191, Jangir Singh vs. Dalbara Singh and others wherein the mistake in the family settlement was permitted to be corrected after decree was granted. Reference in this aforesaid judgment was made to another judgment as 1994 (1)PLR 25, Kartar Singh vs. Harchand Singh. Mr. Sharma does not dispute that the plaint, terms of compromise and judgement & decree are required to be corrected so as to describe property in dispute with reference to revenue record. Mr. Sharma points out that there is no other party and even if rights of any other parties are affected, the compromise between the parties will not affect the rights of a person not party to compromise. In view of the said fact, revision is allowed and the order of learned trial Court dated 18.1.2010 is set aside. The plaintiff is permitted to amend plaint, terms of compromise and judgment & decree so as to incorporate the details of the property. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 26.11.2010 preeti