HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 118 of 2011 Decided on: 27.6.2011 Arun Kumar and Anr. ……… Petitioners. Versus Jarmo & Ors. ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Paras Doger, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This order shall dispose of the petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Chamba in an application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint. 2. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court and they had filed a suit for declaration, challenging the mutations as detailed in the plaint. While filing the suit, the petitioner/plaintiffs had only challenged the mutations but did not challenge the sale deeds, on the basis of which these mutations were attested, which have been challenged by them now. Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiffs are minors and their interest is to be protected. They filed the suit through their maternal grand father challenging the alienation made by their father. - 2 - 4. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner/plaintiffs are minors and their interest has to be protected and in case due diligence has not been shown by the maternal grand father by challenging the sale deeds by their father at the time of filing the suit and only challenged the mutations attested on the basis of the sale deeds, the minors cannot be made to suffer. The only thing be considered is delay part. The case had been finally concluded in the year 2008 and was fixed for arguments when the present application was filed. However, keeping in view the above circumstances, it is clear that the application deserves to be allowed in the peculiar facts of the case that the petitioner/plaintiffs are minors and the respondent/defendants can be duly compensated by costs. They may have to lead fresh evidence to prove their case. 5. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner/plaintiffs are permitted to amend the plaint subject to Rs.1,000/- as costs, which shall be payable by the petitioner/plaintiffs to the respondents before the learned trial Court. Needless to say that an opportunity shall be given to the respondent/defendants to file the amended written statement and the case shall be disposed of in accordance with law by the learned trial court. In view of the fact that the arguments have been partly concluded in the year 2008, the learned trial Court shall try to dispose of the case, as far as possible, within six months from the date fixed for hearing. Parties through their counsel are directed to put up appearance before the learned trial Court on 1st August, 2011 and the Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the aforesaid observations. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment alongwith the records of the case so as to reach the learned trial Court well before the date fixed. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. June 27, 2011. (V.K. Ahuja), (vt) Judge