IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1255 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 22.10.2009 Gurdeep Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Dharmo Bai and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Aggrieved against the order dated 29.11.2008, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana, allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 (herein referred as 'the respondent No.1') under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. as well as Under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., the petitioner-defendant (herein referred as 'the petitioner') has preferred this petition. Heard. The respondent No.1 had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 28.09.2005. During the pendency of the suit, Kulwant Singh Gurpreet Singh and Rajender Singh- defendants got an ex-parte decree dated 08.09.2007 for specific performance of the contract on the basis of alleged agreement dated 22.12.2004. Now the respondent No.1 has sought amendment of the suit as well as impleading the aforesaid Kulwant Singh etc. as party defendant for challenging the decree passed against him during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment titled as State of A.P. And others vs. M/s Pioneer Builders, A.P. 2006 (4) Civil Court Cases 668 (S.C.) wherein it was observed as under:- “Principles governing amendment of pleadings are well- settled. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. deals with the amendment of pleadings and provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is trite that though an amendment Civil Revision No.1255 of 2009(O&M) -2- cannot be claimed as a matter of right under all circumstances, yet the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. It is equally well-settled that unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side, the Court should adopt liberal approach and not a hyper-technical approach particularly in a case where the other side can be compensated with costs. Dominant object to allow the amendment in the pleadings liberally is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (See: L.J.Leach & amp; Co.Ltd. & amp; Anr. vs. M/s Jardine Skinner & amp; Co. AIR 1957 SC 357, Smt.Ganga Bai vs. Vijay Kumar & amp; Ors. 1974 (2) SCC 393 and B.K.Narayana Pillai Vs. Parmeswaran Pillai & amp; Anr 2000 (1) SCC 712. Nevertheless, one distinct cause of action cannot be substituted for another nor the subject-matter of the suit can be changed by means of an amendment. The following passage from the decision of the privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya Vs. Maung Mo Hnaung AIR 1922 Privy Council 249, succinctly summarises the principle which may be kept in mind while dealing with the prayer for amendment of the pleadings: All rules of court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is therefore essential that they should be made to serve and to subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change, by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit.” In view of the matter, the impugned order appears to have been passed on the basis of correct proposition of law. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 22.10.2009 mamta-II