CR No. 2988 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2988 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.5.2011. Krishna Devi .......Petitioner Vs. Malkhan Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed suit for declaration with the consequential relief of perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Vide the impugned order dated 22.4.2011, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was very necessary for the just decision of the case and does not change the nature of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads CR No. 2988 of 2011 (O&M) -2- as under:- “Amendment of pleadings:- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: [Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.]” In the present case, the issues were framed on 21.7.2004 and now the case is admittedly fixed for rebuttal evidence of the petitioner. The application seeking amendment of the plaint has been moved on 16.4.2011. By way of amendment, the petitioner wants to add para 5(A), which reads as under:- “That the plaintiff being the legally wedded wife of the defendant is also entitled to half share of the benefit of pension and other service benefit from the defendant.” The plea that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, has already been taken by the petitioner in para No. 6 of the plaint. It has also been stated by the petitioner that she has one unmarried daughter out of the said wedlock. It has been prayed by the petitioner that a decree be passed that she was the legally wedded wife of the defendant Malkhan Singh. CR No. 2988 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Now by way of amendment, the plaintiff wants to take up the plea that she was entitled to half share of the benefits of pension and other service benefits from the defendant. The said plea, sought to be taken by the plaintiff, has been taken at a belated stage. Moreover, in case the plaintiff is declared as the wife of the defendant, she would be entitled to get the benefits available to her as per law. Hence, the learned trial court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner as the same had been moved at a belated stage and the amendment sought was also not necessary. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE May 05, 2011 Gurpreet