IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.3214 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.1.2009. The Goniana Cooperative Marketing-cum- Processing Society Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Mukhtiar Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.PS Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.1. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated February 28,2008 passed by the learned Court below whereby the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the respondent No1./plaintiff was allowed. Briefly the facts are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the petitioner/defendant to release the arrears of pay from October 1999 to June 2002 along with interest. The application for amendment was filed on November 3, 2007 when the case was fixed for argument after completion of evidence by both the parties. By amendment in the suit was sought to be converted into the suit for recovery of the amount already claimed. The amendment having been allowed the order is impugned before this Court. C.R. No.3214 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff on May 16, 2003. In the written statement filed by the petitioner on January 6, 2004, an objection was taken regarding the maintainability of suit for mandatory injunction which infact was for recovery of money. Still no corrective steps were taken by the respondent No.1./plaintiff. The entire evidence of the parties was complete and the case was fixed for arguments three-four times. It was only thereafter on November 3, 2007 that the application was filed seeking amendment to convert the suit into a suit for recovery which will change the entire nature of the suit and relief claimed. Otherwise also the amendment could not be permitted at the fag end of the trial of the suit. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted that the amendment sought by him will not change the nature of the suit as earlier it was a suit for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner/defendant for release of arrears of pay. Now the amendment is sought to pay the Court fee to avoid any technical objection in future. Otherwise the respondent No.1/plaintiff does not wish to lead any evidence. It is only the pleadings are amended. The Court can decide the case on the basis of evidence already on record. He further submitted that as far as the objection of the petitioners with regard to limitation for filing the suit for recovery is concerned, the Court has already safeguarded their interest by observing in the impugned order that the objection regarding limitation is kept open. C.R. No.3214 of 2008 -3- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. No doubt the application for amendment has been filed at the fag end of the trial, when the case was fixed for arguments but still to cover up the plea of petitioner/defendant regarding the claim made by way of amendment of the pleadings being time barred on the date the application was filed or it was allowed by the Court below in the impugned order the Court has specifically kept the issue of limitation open. Once that is so and also the fact that the respondent No.1/plaintiff stated that he does not wish to lead any evidence in support of the amendment made by him. I do not find any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as he can very well address arguments regarding the claim made by the respondent No.1/plaintiff being time barred. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 22.1.2009 JUDGE Reema