Civil Revision No. 5663 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5663 of 2009 Date of decision. 25.09.2009 Rajeev Kumar s/o late Naresh Chand, r/o H.No.87, Mohalla Talakorian, village Buria Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar. ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Sanjeev Kumar s/o late Naresh Chand, r/o 148-3275, MC, Carthy Road, KIV-9M9, Ontario, Canada. IInd Address: c/o General Power of Attorney Smt. Rukmani Devi w/o late Naresh Chand, c/o Dr. Y.P.Aggarwqal, H.No. 282, Sector 7, Kurukshetra. 2. Smt. Rukmani Devi w/o late Naresh Chand, previously resident of H.No.67, Mohalla Talakorian, village Buria, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, presently c/o Dr. Y.P. Aggarwal, H.No.282,Sector 7, Kurukshetra. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 19.08.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, vide which it Civil Revision No. 5663 of 2009 --2-- dismissed the application of the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, for the amendment of plaint. 2. The plaintiff/revision-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/revision-petitioner moved an application, for incorporating the plea, by converting the suit for possession, into a suit for symbolic possession. It was stated that the amendment was essential for the just decision of the case. 3. This application was contested by the defendants/respondents by filing reply, wherein it was stated that, in case, the amendment was allowed, the nature of the suit shall be changed, and it would also amount to withdrawing the admission, earlier made by the plaintiff. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the record, the trial Court dismissed the application. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision- petition, has been filed, by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record carefully. Civil Revision No. 5663 of 2009 --3-- 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, the law with regard to the amendment of pleadings, is very liberal. He further submitted that the Court below took a pedantic view, as a result whereof, it dismissed the application. He further submitted that the amendment was very essential, for the just decision of the case. He further submitted that even the case was at the preliminary stage. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. As stated above, the plaintiff/ revision-petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. By way of amendment, he wanted to convert the same into a suit for symbolic possession. It may be stated here, that, in case, ultimately, the Court below comes to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed, the lesser relief of symbolic possession instead of possession can always be granted. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, admitted that the relief of symbolic possession is lesser relief. The amendment, thus, sought was Civil Revision No. 5663 of 2009 --4-- not essential for the just decision of the case, nor was it, in any way necessary for the adjudication of controversy involved in the lis. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, placed reliance on Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others (2001)2 Supreme Court Cases 472 and Kuljit Singh v. Sukhdev Singh and others 2009(2) Punjab Law Reporter,682 in support of his contention that the amendment was essential for the just decision of the case. In Ragu Thilak's case (supra) during the pendency of the suit, the respondent entered the property of the plaintiff and demolished the wall on northern, eastern and western sides. The plaintiff filed an application for incorporating the relief of the recovery of damages. This Court dismissed the application. The Apex Court, allowed the same, holding that, even if, the relief sought for by way of amendment, was barred by limitation, the amendment should still be allowed and the disputed matter made the subject matter of an issue. In Kuljit Singh's case (supra) the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, from selling/alienating the property, in dispute, to any other person than him. However, during the pendency of the suit, an application for amendment for converting the suit into one for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell, was filed Civil Revision No. 5663 of 2009 --5-- by the plaintiff. The evidence had not yet started. The application was allowed. The order was challenged, in revision, which was upheld by this Court. The facts of the aforesaid cases, are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, as stated above, the major relief of possession has already been sought by the plaintiff. Lesser relief can always be granted by the Court, if it comes to the conclusion that the major relief, could not be granted to a party, on the basis of facts circumstances and the evidence produced. In this view of the matter, no help can be drawn, by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, from the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order impugned is liable to be upheld. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. ( Sham Sunder ) Judge September 25, 2009 dinesh