IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3158 of 2009 Date of decision:28.05.2009 Vivek Sagar Jain ...Petitioner versus Anand Dev and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against an order allowing an amendment for a plaintiff to include the prayer for mesne profits from December 2007. The counsel for the revision-petitioner contends that he is not liable for mesne profits from December 2007 itself and further that the fact was known to the plaintiff even at the time of filing of the suit and having not claimed it in the plaint as originally filed, he shall not be permitted to include a prayer for mesne profits from December 2007 itself 2. The claim by defendant that he is not liable for mesne profits, is a matter that shall be stated in defence when the amendment is allowed and cannot be used to prevent even the amendment itself. The Court, while allowing the amendment is not adjudicating on the merits of the claim but allowed what was otherwise permissible for a plaintiff Civil Revision No.3158 of 2009 - 2 - filing a suit for recovery of possession. Indeed a separate suit for mesne profits will not be possible especially when the suit for recovery of possession of immovable property is not accompanied with relief of mesne profits and such relief would be barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The Court below has considered the relevant provision of law and has permitted the amendment on due consideration that is relevant. There is no merit in the revision. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.05.2009 sanjeev