IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 161 of 2011. Date of decision: 17.5.2011. Smt. Om Kalra …Petitioner. Versus Sh. Suresh Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 8.4.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Misc. Application No. 72-CM/6 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 33-CA/13 of 2007 whereby he allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 readwith Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he has a right of ingress and egress from the stairs and varandah of the house of the defendant, since the entire property in question was originally owned by one owner, Smt. Saraswati Devi. In the plaint itself, the plaintiff had given details of the khasra 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. : 2 : numbers and all the khasra numbers were mentioned in the plaint. 3. The suit was dismissed and thereafter the appellant filed an appeal. When the appeal was ripe for hearing and about 3 years after the appeal was filed, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC wherein he basically added certain lines showing the different khasra numbers of staircase, gallery, varandah etc. This application has been allowed and hence the present petition. 4. Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the suit is beyond the trial stage and at this stage the amendment should not have been allowed. Mr. Rupinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is right to the extent that the trial has not only commenced, but has ended. 5. However, in the present case, I find that the plaintiff in the suit itself had specifically claimed the right of egress and ingress over all the khasra Nos. i.e. 1091,1094,1097,1098 and 1099 measuring 53.97 square meters. All that is done by means of this amendment is to identify the khasra numbers with regard to the actual use of the land e.g. khasra No. 1097 measuring 1.04 square meters is the gallery and khasra No. 1098 measuring 01.20 square meters is the staircase etc. This amendment : 3 : does not change the nature of the case at all. It also does not entail the production of any new evidence, since the plaintiff in his application has clearly stated that he has placed a site plan and all other documentary evidence on record and this amendment is only necessary to identify the suit property. 6. Therefore, the petition is rejected, but it is clarified that in view of the averments made by the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to lead any additional evidence and the appeal shall be decided on the basis of the evidence on record. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge May 17, 2011. (Krn Guleria)