CR No.3935 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3935 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9.08.2011 M/s Jain Rice Mills ..... Petitioner Versus M/s Krishna Trading Company and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karamjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.04.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed. Petitioner/plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.3,60,000/- being a principal amount along with interest of Rs.1,40,000/- totalling Rs.5 lacs. In Para 1 of the plaint, it was stated that plaintiff firm was constituted under the Indian Partnership Act and Dr. N.K. Jain being partner has been duly authorized to file the plaint. It is stated that the day when the plaint was filed, Dr. N.K. Jain had expired. It is stated that plaint was signed and verified by Raman Kumar another partner of the firm. It was pleaded before the Lower Appellate Court that this mistake has occurred due to typographical error. Vide application (Annexure P-2) plaintiff also intended to add another paragraph being Para No.7(A) to say that the amount of the CR No.3935 of 2011 -2- goods supplied was debited in the accounts of the defendant firm and was also reflected in the books of accounts of the plaintiff firm. Furthermore, these accounts were regularly maintained. The Lower Appellate Court had declined the amendment on the ground that same has been proposed only to nullify the effect of the observations of the trial Court. I have heard Sh. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Sh. Karamjit Singh, Advocate for respondent/defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plea raised by Sh. Veneet Sharma that in the head note and in the Para No.1 of the plaint, name of Dr. N.K. Jain as a partner was wrongly mentioned due to inadvertance and was bona fide mistake look probable because the plaint and verification is signed by the Raman Kumar whose name is now sought to be brought on record by way of amendment. Therefore, this part of the proposed amendment is accepted and wherever in the plaint, name of Dr. N.K. Jain is mentioned, same be read as Raman Kumar. However, so far introduction of Para No. 7(A) in the plaint is concerned, same ought to be rejected at the outset as it will not only demolish the case of the defendant which he has been able to prove on record after formulating, strategy and tenor of the cross-examination and also modulating his defence. Thus the course suggested by Sh. Veneet Sharma, Advocate cannot be accepted as it will lead to conduct of the trial de novo. This will demolish the gains made by the defendant. Hence this part of the amendment is declined. Disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 09.08.2011 JUDGE manju