C.R. No. 4923 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4923 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.08.2010 Surat Singh & another .......... Petitioners Versus Jagjit Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Brig. B.S. Taunque (Retd.), Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6.6.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Dasuya, vide which application moved by the plaintiff / petitioners for amendment of the plaint was declined. The petitioner / plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect,that the plaintiffs are owners in equal share of tubewell as well as electric connection, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.2 & 3 from transferring the electric connection in the name of defendant No.1, and not releasing him connection as per instructions of defendant. The case of the petitioners was that during the pendency of the suit defendant No.1 illegally disconnected the connection of C.R. No. 4923 of 2009 -2- ***** the tubewell, and is using it. The necessity, therefore, arose to amend the plaint, to incorporate the following amendment :- “That the defendant no.1 in connivance with the defendant no. 2 and 3 cut the electric wire of the tube well electric connection in dispute by adopting the procedure of fraud, cheat and theft during the pendency of the suit and connected it in his own adjoining tube well.” x x x x x x x x “And suit for mandatory injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants directing the defendants to connect the electric wire to the tube well of plaintiffs which has been cut by the defendant no.1 in connivance with defendants no. 2 & 3 during the pendency of the present case by adopting the procedure of fraud, cheat and theft.” The learned trial Court has dismissed the application only for the reason, that no date of disconnection was mentioned in the application, and furthermore that the defence of the respondent was that the electric connection stood sold by the plaintiffs to respondent No.1. The finding of the learned trial Court can not be sustained, as the learned trial Court could not go into the merits of the amendment. If the subsequent events in the suit were necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the Court was bound to allow the amendment, as it is well settled law, that law of amendment, is to be liberally applied, and the party should be C.R. No. 4923 of 2009 -3- ***** allowed, to amend the pleading, at any stage of proceedings, subject to the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure. The learned trial Court could not reject the amendment merely for want of date, though amendment sought was regarding subsequent events, which were necessary for final adjudication of the case, of the parties. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the petitioners is allowed. This shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs, for the inconvenience caused to the respondents. 13.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE