CR No. 2111 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2111 of 2010 Date of decision:- 6.9.2010 Harvinder Singh ......petitioner vs. Nashwinder Kaur and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by learned trial Court on 16.3.2010, whereby an application for amendment of the plaint with regard to the correct description of the suit property was declined. The reason given by the trial Court, inter alia, is that the trial has commenced and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint and that the plaintiff has not explained how the amendment is necessary and proper for decision of the Court. It is the case of the petitioner that due to misunderstanding, the description of suit property was wrongly described as a result of which the main gate and rooms have been shown in the eastern part whereas actually the main gate and rooms are in the western part of the suit property. Consequent, corrections are also required to be made in the site plan on the basis of which the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint after the affidavits of examination-in-chief was furnished on behalf of PW 1 i.e. the plaintiff himself and that of Shekhar Verma as PW 2 but before the witnesses CR No. 2111 of 2010 -2- were to be cross-examined. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff has sought amendment after commencement of the trial and that the amendment, if allowed will totally change the nature of the suit. It is admitted by learned counsel for parties that there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner. Still further the suit is at the initial stage and though the said witnesses have filed affidavits of examination-in-chief but the cross-examination is still to be conducted. In view of the said fact, it cannot be said that the plaintiff by seeking amendment of the plaint was trying to take the benefit of either the interim order or to delay the trial of the case. Mistake in the site plan could always be corrected as it will provide opportunity to the parties to present the case in the correct manner. Even if the amendment was allowed at that stage, none of the rights of the defendants were effected prejudicially as the defendants will have the right to lead evidence and to cross-examine the plaintiff in the light of the amendment, if permitted to be carried out. Though, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that after the order was passed, the plaintiff-witnesses have been cross-examined as well. But the fact remains that on the day when the plaintiff sought amendment in the plaint, the plaintiff-witnesses were not cross-examined. The right of the plaintiff to seek amendment is to be examined on the day when the application for amendment was filed. The inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be carried out only for the reason that the plaintiff has filed such application when the issues were framed and affidavit by way of examination-in-chief has been filed. The ends of justice would meet, when the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint so as to enable the parties to contest the suit on merits and not on technicalities. CR No. 2111 of 2010 -3- Consequently, the order passed by the learned trial Court on 16.3.2010 is set aside. Plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as sought for. Amended plaint is permitted to be filed on 23.9.2010, the date fixed before the trial Court. Disposed of in the above terms. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to the counsel on payment of usual charges. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 6.9.2010 preeti