CR No.966 of 2010.doc - 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.966 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 24.02.2010 **** Nand Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. Mukhtyar . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This revision petition has filed against order of the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby application of the petitioner, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been dismissed. In the application, the petitioner wanted to take a plea that in case amount of compensation is awarded then that shall be paid to the petitioner. This aspect has been dealt with by the learned Addl. District Judge, faridabad in para No.9 of the his order, which reads thus: - “The perusal of this prayer clause in itself shows that in case, at the time of final adjudication of this appeal, the appellant–applicant is found to be entitled to any alternative relief, such as payment of award money, in my opinion, under prayer clause No.(iv) such relief may be accorded to the applicant CR No.966 of 2010.doc - 2 – and therefore, the seeking of amendment of pleadings in this case at appellate stage is not at all necessary”. In view of the aforesaid finding, there is no merit in the present appeal. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) February 24, 2010 JUDGE vivek