CR No.6930 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6930 of 2009. Decided on: June 02, 2011. Smt. Kamla Wati and another. .. Petitioners VERSUS Rattanjot Kumari and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Anil Khetarpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Nitin Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. This revision petition has been preferred by the defendants against the order dated 17.11.2009, passed by the lower appellate Court, permitting plaintiff-respondent No.1, to amend the pleadings to introduce para No.5 in order to enable the plaintiff- . . . 1 CR No.6930 of 2009 respondent to make the pleadings more terse and telling to show that the property of the mother of plaintiff-respondent No.1 Karmawali was grabbed by fraud and misrepresentation by Arjan Singh and his brother Kehar Singh as she had not executed any Power of Attorney in favour of Arjan Singh who had been squandering away the property of Karmawali and had even sold her house at Delhi. Vide impugned order, the lower appellate Court has though dismissed the application of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to implead Arjan Singh as defendant No.6 but has allowed the amendment of the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, at appellate stage, observing that the ground of fraud has been taken right from the beginning by the plaintiff and addition of further pleadings on the same score to make the said ground more elaborate and focused, is necessary to appreciate the entire gamut of activities in a sequential order, one after the other unfolding the entire canvass. The lower appellate Court believed that in case the additional support to the pleadings is not permitted by an application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC, it would be difficult to appreciate the entire controversy between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that in view of the fact that plaintiff-respondent No.1, had failed to take the detailed pleas as have been sought to be added by amendment at initial stage, a great prejudice will be caused to the defendants-petitioners. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well . . . 2 CR No.6930 of 2009 as respondents, at length, and carefully gone through the order passed by the lower appellate Court. The nature of the suit, the pleadings and the reasons for allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, are not required to be discussed in detail, at this stage, to test the reasoning adopted by the lower appellate Court lest it should prejudice the rights of the defendants or the plaintiff and effect their rights which are yet to be adjudicated upon by the lower appellate Court, but in view of prima facie strong allegations of patent fraud and misrepresentation which have been levelled by the plaintiff against the defendants, the lower appellate seems to have rightly observed that the incorporation of additional pleas are necessary for the final adjudication of the controversy between the parties. No ground is made out for interference in the well reasoned judgment of the lower appellate Court. The revision petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, a direction is issued to the lower appellate Court to expeditiously dispose of the matter preferrably within a period of 6 months after the receipt of a copy of this order by giving adequate opportunity to the parties to plead and prove their case. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE June 02, 2011. rka . . . 3