IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6661 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 21.04.2008 Balwant Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate. vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Mukesh Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 21.9.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction regarding release of some amount deposited by him with the respondents as security. The petitioner appears to be a government contractor. In para 2 of the original plaint, the petitioner-plaintiff appears to have referred to a Government order dated 30.12.1998. By way of amendment, he merely wanted to add the words “and memo no.6179 dated 30.12.1998.” In other words, the petitioner merely wanted to give a better C.R. No.6661 of 2007 -2- description of the order dated 30.12.1998 which he has already referred to in para 2 of the plaint. The learned trial Court ought not to have adopted a hyper-technical view while declining the said amendment which is clarificatory in nature. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 21.9.2007 is set aside and while allowing the application for amendment, the petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to place on record the amended plaint. April 21, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE