C.R. No. 4818 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4818 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 2, 2009 Amit Bansal and others …..Petitioners Vs. Ramji Dass Garg and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. A.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms.Bindu Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated May 15, 2008 by virtue of which the trial Court has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 for amendment of the plaint. C.R. No. 4818 of 2008 [2] Petitioners are defendant Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11 and 19. They have approached this Court against the impugned order contending that by allowing the amendment, the trial Court has granted permission to plaintiff- respondent No.1 to withdraw the admission regarding the ownership of the defendant- petitioners and other proforma defendants. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the pleadings. Plaintiff- respondent No.1 in his suit has claimed a number of reliefs i.e. partition of the joint property measuring 1700 sq. yards situated in the Municipal Corporation area at Gill Road, Nirankari Mohalla, Ludhiana. He has also sought a declaration that the compromise dated February 3, 2007, executed inter-se defendants No.1 and 19 in Civil suits for injunction and recovery is null and void being a fraud played by the parties on the Court/ Lok Adalat; relief of permanent injunction has also been sought against all the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property or alienating the same. The suit of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 is not merely a suit for title or for declaration of ownership of a particular portion of the property. While allowing the application for amendment, the trial Court has taken into consideration the initial stage of the case besides observing that the amendment is necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. It has also been brought to my notice by counsel for respondent No.1 that after allowing the amendment of the plaint, amended written statement has also been placed on record and issues are now required to be framed on the basis of the amended pleadings. C.R. No. 4818 of 2008 [3] In view of said circumstances, no ground is made out for interference. Defendants would be at liberty to seek the benefit of admission, if any, made by the opposite party in the pleadings during the course of trial. Dismissed. September 2, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE