Civil Revision No.899 of 2011 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 08, 2011. Civil Revision No.899 of 2011 (O & M ) Gurnam Singh ….Petitioner Versus Ajmer Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Revision No.899 of 2011 (O & M ) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the trial Court whereby application made by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I do not see any reason which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The plaintiff-petitioner, by way of the amendment sought for, inter alia, wanted to amend the plaint by claiming relief of possession on the ground that the defendant-respondent, during the pendency of the instant suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, took possession of the suit property from the plaintiff and made a temporary shed forcibly and illegally. In the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he did not disclose as to when the defendant-respondent took forcible possession of the suit property from him and as to when he (defendant) raised the construction. Neither the plaintiff-petitioner approached the police nor took any other step to bring forth his grievance when allegedly the possession of the suit property was forcibly taken from him by the defendant-petitioner. The suit is at its final stage and throughout the case of the defendant has been that he is in possession of the suit property and the construction was raised by him way back in 1987. Under the circumstances, the proposed amendment in the suit was rightly declined by the trial Court. No fault, therefore, can be found with the impugned order. Civil Revision No.899 of 2011 (O & M ) This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed being without any merit. Dated: February 08, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE