C.R. No. 4478 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4478 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 14, 2009 Pardeep Kumar Seth …..Petitioner Vs. Dr.Nishu Kharbanda and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated April 30, 2009, an application filed by plaintiff- respondent for amendment of the plaint has been allowed taking into consideration the stage of the case. By way of amendment, the plaintiff-respondent has been permitted to incorporate the following additional plea, alongwith supplementary additions:- “iv) That the plaintiff wants to add para No.3-A in her plaint which reads as: “That the defendant No.1 C.R. No. 4478 of 2009 [2] grandfather, namely, Late Shri Thakar Dass s/o Jia Lal had purchased the plot owned and possessed by defendant No.1 from its original owners S/Shri Shiv Parshad etc. vide registered Sale deed 338 dated 11.12.1951. The said plot measures 40 sq. yards i.e. east-west 9 gatha each and north-south 6 gatha each total measuring 2 biswa 14 biswansi of Hidyatpur Chawni, Gurgaon and the mutation of sale in favour of Shri Thakar Dass S/o Late Jia Lal was sanctioned on 19.3.1952 bearing No.455 and a Titamma was also carved out. While sanctioning the mutation the plot so purchased by late Thakar Dass was given the number as 711/35/2 while the gali of eastern side was given the number as 710/35/1 and the remaining land of Khasra No.35 of Hidyatpur Chawni was given the number as 35/2. After the death of Shri Thakar Dass and his son Shri J.N. Seth the property was inherited by defendant No.1.” The trial Court formed an opinion that the abovesaid amendment, if allowed, will not change the nature and character of the suit and that the facts which are sought to be brought on record are necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. C.R. No. 4478 of 2009 [3] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment has been sought by the plaintiff- respondent with an oblique motive to grab the property of defendant and that the plea which is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment was already known to the plaintiff. After hearing counsel for the defendant- petitioner, I am of the opinion that mere allowing the amendment will not tentamount to admitting the facts pleaded in the plaint. The amendment, in case allowed, would help the Court to ultimately determine the real controversy existing between the parties once for all. Besides this, the amendment has been allowed before the framing of the issues i.e. prior to the commencement of the trial. The defendant- petitioner will have sufficient opportunity during the course of trial to substantiate his plea that a wrong amendment has been incorporated contrary to the actual facts existing on the record. No ground is made out for interference in the order allowing the amendment of plaint- respondent. Dismissed. December 14, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE