C.R. No. 2739 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2739 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.08.2010 Lal Chand Saini .... Petitioner Versus Municipal Committee Mahendergarh through its President and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2 Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondents No. 3 and 4 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging order dated 5.4.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Mahendergarh whereby the application of the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff- petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants on 1.8.2003. During the pendency of the suit, it came into the notice of the plaintiff that defendants have issued one letter dated 12.8.2003 informing the plaintiff about the cancellation of C.R. No. 2739 of 2010 2 the shop and further directing the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Mahendergarh for auctioning the disputed shop. Plaintiff moved an application before the trial Court seeking amendment in the plaint incorporating pleadings regarding issuance of the notice dated 12.8.2003 in the plaint and further pleading to the effect that notice dated 12.8.2003 is wrong, illegal, null and void. This amendment sought by the plaintiff was declined by learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no further evidence is required and just to avoid technicalities, plaintiff wants to plead about the factum of issuance of notice dated 12.8.2003 and about the illegality of the notice dated 12.8.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that factum of issuance of notice dated 12.8.2003 is admitted to the defendants and they are not denying existence of the notice dated 12.8.2003. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that since evidence is closed and case is fixed for hearing, at this stage of the case amendment ought not to have been allowed and trial Court was within its jurisdiction while dismissing the amendment application. 5. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that no further evidence shall be required and factum of notice is admitted to the defendant, in my view plaintiff should have been permitted by the trial Court to bring the pleading about the issuance of notice and pleading to the effect that notice is void and illegal, otherwise also any amendment clarifying the case of the party should be allowed at any stage of the suit particularly when no further evidence is required to be produced. C.R. No. 2739 of 2010 3 6. In view of the above, present petition is allowed. Application seeking amendment in the plaint moved by the plaintiff is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/- as costs to the respondents to be paid within 15 days from today. It is further clarified that none of the party shall lead evidence on the question of notice as agreed by both the parties. (ALOK SINGH) 11.08.2010 JUDGE reena