C.R. No.4132 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4132 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision: 21.12.2011 Ramesh Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.K.S. Kahlon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.C. Berry, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondents. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.: (Oral) The plaintiff has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 19th April, 2011 passed by the trial court whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner was posted as Constable at Gurdaspur and on 13th February, 2003, he was ordered to be attached on security for six months with PRTC, Jehan Khalan. The petitioner could not join at Jehan Khalan due to an accident for about 46 days and he remained absent from duty without sanction of leave. After a departmental inquiry, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 06.11.2003 ordered forfeiture of two years service with permanent effect for the purpose of the annual increment and further ordered that the period of suspension shall be counted as a period of suspension. Appeal C.R. No.4132 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner against the said order, was dismissed on 26.12.2003 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Amritsar. Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a civil suit on 01.03.2007 challenging the order dated 6.11.2003. An application was filed on 21.12.2010 for amendment of the plaint seeking to challenge order dated 26.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police whereby the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner had been dismissed. The said application was dismissed by the trial court on 19.04.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had rejected the application primarily on the ground that the order dated 26.12.2003 could not be challenged in 2010 whereas the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police has recurring effect and, therefore, the application for amendment could not be said to be beyond limitation. He further submitted that in the interest of justice, the application for amendment of the plaint ought to have been allowed by the trial court. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, I do not find any merit in the said contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to demonstrate that as to how without setting aside the order dated 26.12.2003, which was passed in appeal by Deputy Inspector General of Police, the claim of the petitioner could be sustained. Further, declaration could be sought within three years of the passing of the order whereas the same was sought to be challenged in 2010 by way of amendment. The application for amendment (annexure P/4) had been filed on 21.12.2010 after more than three and a half years of filing of the suit. C.R. No.4132 of 2011 (O & M) ::3:: No plausible explanation had been tendered for not challenging the said order in the suit filed on 01.03.2007. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff-petitioner could not be allowed to amend the plaint in 2010 to lay challenge to an order passed on 26.12.2003. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 21, 2011 sukhpreet