CMPMO No.35 of 2005. 10.1.2008. Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. This petition was admitted to hearing on 17th November, 2005 and post admission notices were issued to all the respondents. All the respondents except respondent No.5 and 13 have been served, but despite service none appears on their behalf. Respondents No.5 and 13 are proforma respondents in this petition. A bare perusal of the cause title of the plaint, which is a part of the impugned order and which appears at page 17 of the paper book also reveals that respondents No.5 and 13 indeed are proforma respondents. Therefore, there is no need to serve them in this case. Heard Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. Because none has appeared to contest this petition and further because I do feel that in the interest of justice, the petitioners/plaintiffs ought to have been permitted to carry out the amendment in the plaint for challenging order dated 27th June, 1997 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dharamshala, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 5th November, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amb, District Una and consequently direct that the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking 2 amendment of the plaint shall be allowed. The consequences shall follow. The petition is disposed of. Interim order passed on 15th March, 2005 and confirmed on 17th November, 2005 shall stand vacated. 10th January, 2008. (V.K. Gupta), C.J. (tr)