C.R.No.660 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.660 of 2008. Decided on: September 08, 2009. Tulsa Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS M/s Ritesh Industries Limited and another .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.S.K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.I.S.Ratta, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 04.10.2007, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. Brief facts, of the case, are that the petitioner- plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of house mentioned in the heading of the plaint and that the defendants-respondents should be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. The claim of the plaintiff is that he was owner of plot measuring 8 1/3 marlas . . . 1 C.R.No.660 of 2008 comprised in Khata No.38/45, Khasra No.28//6, 7, 14, 28//17/1 and that defendant-respondent No.1, was allotted 40 acres of land in village Mundian Khurd, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The claim of the plaintiff is that out of the said allotted land to the defendant- respondent, the plaintiff was given 250 square yards of land described in heading of the plaint in lieu of his land in village Mundian Khurd. The agreement dated 02.11.1995, was executed between the parties and the land was exchanged whereby the parties took possession of the exchanged land. Originally the plaintiff has merely sought a declaration and injunction regarding the house in dispute but subsequently, the plaintiff sought to add an alternative relief seeking the possession of the land which was originally owned by him and was subject matter of the exchange deed. Vide impugned order, the said application has been dismissed observing that it will lead to multiplicity of litigation and that nature of the suit will be changed entirely as the cause of action will be changed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner merely wants to add an alternative relief and the claim for the alternative relief is not to be determined on merits, at this stage. Besides this, the case is at initial stage. It is also urged by counsel for the petitioner that no prejudice will be caused to the defendants- respondents, in case the prayer for altenative relief is permitted to be added. Counsel for the respondents has vehemently . . . 2 C.R.No.660 of 2008 opposed the amendment of the plaint contending that the plaintiff wants to fill-in lacunae in the case after the written statement has been filed. Besides this, it has been offered by counsel for the respondents that during the pendency of the case, the plaintiff will not be dispossessed regarding which the defendants-respondents will not oppose the relief of interim injunction. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the trial has not actually commenced and the application for amendment has been filed by the plaintiff at initial stage and the addition of a prayer for adding alternative relief of possession of land measuring 8 1/3 marlas will not in any manner prejudice the rights of the defendants-respondents as the rights of both the parties are yet to be determined on merits. Besides this, the amendment will not change the nature of the suit and appears to be necessary for determination of the real question in controversy between the parties. It will also help in the final settlement of the dispute between the parties once for all. The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.10.2007, declining the amendment of the plaint is hereby set aside. Application for amendment is allowed subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs. Costs will be paid before the trial Court. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 08, 2009. rka . . . 3