IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 425 of 2009. Date of decision: 9.8.2010 M/s Jaypee Karcham Hydro Corporation Ltd. Petitioner. Versus Ram Lacch and others. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents No.2 & 4: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent No.5 Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Central Govt. Counsel. For the respondent No.6.: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. . Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.4.2009 whereby the prayer of the plaintiff to amend the pleadings has been rejected on the ground that two opportunities were previously granted to the petitioner to file application for amendment but despite time granted the same was not amended. 2. The only ground raised in this petition is that there was some communication gap with the counsel 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 and some documents were required to be annexed which were not available. There is no material placed on record to show that any application for certified copy of any documents was filed by the petitioner. After obtaining stay, a litigant cannot be permitted to prolong the proceedings under the garb of either amending the petition or by using dilatory tactics. The petition is, therefore, rejected. It is, however, made clear that the proceedings for eviction filed by the State against respondents No. 1 to 4 under the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act shall not be effected by this order and shall continue and if not already completed they shall be expedited and completed by 31st December, 2010. No costs. 9th August, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™