C.R. No. 4970 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4970 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.07.2010 Ram Kishan and others .... Petitioners Versus Haryana State and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Parveen Hans, Advocate for respondent No. 5 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.7.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Hansi thereby rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that initially plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed suit for declaration claiming their title over the property in dispute. Thereafter, petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application seeking amendment in the plaint for addition of the relief of possession saying during the pendency of the suit; Defendants have taken possession over the property in suit. Amendment application was rejected by observing that plaintiffs could not prove that possession was taken by the defendants from the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit. It was further observed C.R. No. 4970 of 2009 2 by learned trial Court that by allowing the plaintiffs to add relief of the possession, nature of the suit would change from suit for declaration to suit for declaration and possession. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in case plaintiffs are not permitted to add relief of the possession, there would be multiplicity of the suit. To avoid multiplicity of the suit amendment ought to have been allowed. Moreover, in the event of allowing the amendment the main issue of title would be same. 4. Learned counsel for respondent-defendant argued that plaintiffs are not owner of the suit and their suit is not maintainable. 5. All these pleas can be raised at the time of hearing of the suit but can not be considered at the time of disposal of the amendment application. Court should not adopt hyper technical view to deny the amendment in the pleadings which are just and proper for fair adjudication of the suit and to avoid multiplicity of the litigations. 6. The petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. 7. The amendment application moved by plaintiffs is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the defendants within a week from today. The amendment shall be carried out in the pleading within 15 days. (ALOK SINGH) 08.07.2010 JUDGE reena