IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3802 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.7.2009 Rajbir Singh and others ....Petitioners. Versus Municipal Corporation (erstwhile known as Faridabad Complex Administration) and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plaintiff-petitioners have approached this Court by way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad whereby the application filed by them under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. The trial court while dismissing the aforesaid application of the plaintiff-petitioners in paras 12 and 13 of its order has recorded as under:- “12. In the present case in hand the plaintiff claimed their possession over the suit land as per twenty point program of Central and State Government under the Constitution of India as the land in suit C.R. No. 3802 of 2009 -2- underneath the house in question was allotted to the plaintiffs in the names of plaintiff's forefathers for the upliftment of the forefathers of the plaintiffs. Now the plaintiffs in the proposed amendment alleged that the suit land was left for the use of Harijans of the village during the consolidation of holding of village Unchagaon and they are using some portion of the same as Gitwars, and they tether their cattles. As per consolidation Act and Scheme Istemal Arazi, the suit land was left for use of non proprietors of the village, therefore, the same cannot be mutated in favour of the MCF. It is held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled Mehar Vs. Yashpal 1999 (2) RCR 441 that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to completely alter his original case. Thus the application for amendment filed under order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. is not sustainable. 13. Further the proposed amendment would change the entire pleadings of the parties. The present case pertains to the year 1998, hence, as per provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., “the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made out as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real C.R. No. 3802 of 2009 -3- question in controversy between the parties.” In the present case in hand, both the parties have led their evidence as per their pleadings and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence & arguments. They had taken the plea about their possession over the land in question and also admission made by the plaintiffs in the plaint at the time of filing of the suit cannot be changed lateron by way of amendment as the same was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the time of filing the suit. The proposed amendment is not just and proper for controversy between the parties.” No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the trial court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Nothing contained in this order shall be deemed to be an expression on the merits of the case. July 13, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE