IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 1687 of 2006. Date of Decision: 18th February, 2008. Raghubir Singh Chhinna Petitioners. through Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate Versus Kartar Singh Sekhon & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for respondents No. 1,3, 5 and 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of 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) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13th December, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshaher whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. moved by the petitioners for amendment of their plaint, has been dismissed. There exists a dispute between two sets of members of the Managing Committee of J.S.F.H. Khalsa High School, Nawanshaher. The petitioners have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are duly elected members/office bearers of the aforesaid school and that the election allegedly held on 26th February, 1999 is null and void. Admittedly, further proceedings in Civil Revision No. 1687 of 2006. ::-2-:: the aforesaid civil suit were stayed under Section 10 CPC in the light of the fact that the same controversy was already a subject matter of RSA No. 4540 of 2003 pending in this Court. The petitioners, however, moved an application for amendment of their plaint on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the tenure of the Managing Committee/members had expired and pursuant to a fresh election, they have been re-elected. Learned trial Court, however, dismissed the application after observing that the said subsequent event is not necessary to be brought on record to decide as to whether or not the election held on 26th February, 1999 is null and void. It is, however, stated by learned counsel for the parties that RSA No. 4540 of 2003 has since been decided by this Court and the suit would now proceed on merits. In these circumstances, when the suit is at its preliminary stage, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent/defendants if the amendment sought by the petitioners on the basis of alleged events which have already taken place, is allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has pointed out that even the term of the so-called elected members who are claiming themselves to have been re-elected, would also expire on 31st March, 2008. He apprehends and rightly so that if the present amendment is allowed, the petitioners might move an application again after March, 2008 claiming themselves to have been further re- Civil Revision No. 1687 of 2006. ::-3-:: elected and would, thus, keep on seeking one after the other amendment endlessly. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the petitioners, though can be permitted to bring on record the subsequent events which have already taken place, more so when no effective proceedings have taken place so far. This would, however, not mean that the petitioners can seek repeated amendments of the plaint, thereby stalling final adjudication of the suit. Consequently, while the application in hand for amendment of the plaint is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to place on record the amended plaint, however, if a similar application is moved by them on the basis of some alleged election held in future, the learned trial Court would be well within its right to reject the same. Learned trial Court shall also make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within one year. Disposed of. February 18, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE